Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. Speaker in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

MILFORD DOCKS BILL

As amended, considered.

To be read the Third time.

STROMNESS (VEHICLE FERRY TERMINA) PIER ETC. ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

Read the Third time and passed.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Fishing Rights

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will now take steps to take into public ownership fishing rights on all Scottish lochs and rivers.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Gordon Campbell): No, Sir.

Mr. Hamilton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this would probably be the most popular measure which the Government could introduce? It would have the almost universal acceptance and agreement of anglers in Scotland. Will the right hon. Gentleman seek to stop the Hydro-Electric Board, a public corporation, from selling off to the highest bidder fishing rights on the River Awe? This is a scandal which ought not to be tolerated by the Scottish Office or by anybody in this House.

Mr. Campbell: Quite a large part of the salmon fishing in rivers and also in lochs is already publicly-owned by the Crown Estate Commissioners, the High-

lands and Islands Development Board, the Forestry Commission and the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board and this has brought no particular advantages to the public or to anglers.
As to the second part of the question, the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board no doubt considers that this is in the best interests of keeping the supply of electricity at as low a price as possible, and that is its main duty. I remind the hon. Gentleman that under the previous Government the Hydro-Electric Board disposed of its fishing rights in the River Shin at the end of 1969.

Mr. Russell Johnston: Can the right hon. Gentleman assure us that the sale of these fishing rights by the Board has not followed any pressure from the Government? The right hon. Gentleman indicated that this was a commercial decision by the board. It is not a commercial decision but a social one, and for that reason the Government should intervene and prevent the sale.

Mr. Campbell: This is a decision taken entirely by the board itself, and questions about the reasons for it had best be addressed to the board.

Firing Range (Tain)

Mr. Maclennan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received about the proposal to site a firing range near Tain; and what reply he has sent.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: Five, including one petition. Until the consultations being carried out by the Ministry of Defence have been completed, it is not possible to reply to the substance of these representations.

Mr. Maclennan: Is the right hon. Gentleman able to adduce any evidence at all that there would be advantage to my constituents in Sutherland from the location of this firing range which might offset to any degree the patent damage to the amenity of the area from a tourist point of view, the threat to fishing from the port of Helmsdale and possible interference with flying from the new feeder airstrip at Dornoch?

Mr. Campbell: I cannot comment on the substance of the matter until the consultations are ended. My hon. Friend


the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray) has been actively engaged in helping those in Ross and Cromarty to ascertain the facts. There was a test firing on Monday, and yesterday the Press reported some of the reactions. I am determined to get as many good and lasting jobs as possible in Scotland, and I shall continue to do that until there are seen to be overriding objections.

Mr. Donald Stewart: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that these are not the types of jobs we want in the Highlands? We have an excess of defence establishments which are too dangerous, too unpleasant and too anti-social for Scotland. These are the things that have been dumped on Scotland and they are not wanted. We want reasonable and fair development that will give a chance to the people to live in a pleasant environment instead of having to put up with schemes and projects which have been rejected elsewhere.

Mr. Campbell: I do not accept that general proposition. These jobs are good and lasting. The problem is whether the firing and anything else that goes with the testing of these weapons would be damaging to amenity or cause injury in some way in the neighbourhood.

Mr. Ross: Is this the firing range that was hawked around West Wales and Galloway?

Mr. Campbell: This is part of what is at present at Shoeburyness which the Ministry of Defence found could not be fitted in at Galloway where there is already an RAF establishment.

North-East of Scotland Water Board

Mr. Robert Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has recently had with the North-East of Scotland Water Board; and if he will make a statement.

The Under-Secretary of State for Development, Scottish Office (Mr. George Younger): Following representations which the board recently made to my right hon. Friend, he is arranging for discussions to be held with the board shortly about future responsibility for water supply in South Kincardineshire.

Mr. Hughes: When the Minister meets the board, will he recollect from the

correspondence that both the board and Kincardine County Council regard his proposals to treat South Kincardine as an added area to the East of Scotland Water Board as a departure from the principles of the Wheatley Commission Report and the Government's White Paper? How can he justify this bearing in mind that he does not regard these proposals as being necessarily permanent? Will he meet the board with an open mind?

Mr. Younger: We are aware of the points made by the hon. Gentleman and others and by the board, and these will be carefully borne in mind in the discussions.

Redundancies

Mr. Strang: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will arrange for the Scottish Development Department to carry out a study into the number of jobs which are likely to be lost in Scotland during the next 12 months.

Mr. Younger: The Scottish Office and the other Departments concerned are already in close touch with employment trends in Scotland.

Mr. Strang: Does the Minister accept that as long as unemployment in Scotland remains at its present level any decision to pay off people in the nationalised industries is a political decision? Following yesterday's monstrous and appalling announcement connected with the steel industry, is there no limit to the misery and demoralisation which the present pathetically ineffective Secretary of State for Scotland is prepared to accept for the working people of Scotland?

Mr. Younger: I would not accept any of the epithets which the hon. Gentleman has thought up during the morning. I remind him that in the midst of our concern at the announcement which was made by the steel industry—which is the responsibility of the Department of Trade and Industry—[HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."]—we should bear in mind three things. First, in the terms of the hon. Gentleman's question, there are no redundancies within the next 12 months. Secondly, the objective, stated in yesterday's announcement, is to modernise the Scottish steel industry, which is something I should have thought all of us would have supported. Thirdly, there will be considerably more than £60


million new investment in the Scottish steel industry, which also ought to be welcomed.

Mr. Edward Taylor: Is it not a somewhat dangerous precedent for an announcement of this character, affecting the long-term strategy of the corporation in deciding to close the open hearth furnace in question, to be made in such a situation and not to be made in the House, particularly bearing in mind that on 8th May we had a statement on the future long-term strategy for the industry, when we were given a clear assurance that this was being discussed between the BSC and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and that no announcement would be made until later this year? Was my hon. Friend consulted about this matter? Does not he regard this as a dangerous precedent?

Mr. Younger: Most of the points made by my hon. Friend—I readily recognise his concern and that of other hon. Members—should be put to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. On my hon. Friend's other point, the steel industry has to make its announcements like any other industry. If hon. Members on the Opposition benches object to that, they might have thought of that before they nationalised it.

Mr. Lawson: Will the hon. Gentleman try to persuade his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to come to the Dispatch Box and make a statement on this matter, which is extremely important for all of us in Scotland? Will the hon. Gentleman do his utmost to ensure that whatever steel-making capacity in Scotland is put out, it is replaced with at least the equivalent amount, so that we are not put in a position of having to import crude steel from England for rolling in Scotland? Will he further ensure that effective action is taken over the period to ensure that any redundancies which occur are made good by new jobs being brought into the area?

Mr. Younger: In reply to the hon. Gentleman's last point, I consider it important that at all times we should have a vigorous policy of attracting new industry to replace the jobs lost, whether they are in the steel industry or in anything else. As the hon.

Gentleman knows, we have taken exceptional steps to achieve this, introducing the best system of regional incentives we have ever had. This policy is in the interests of all of us, particularly those with constituents involved. It should be borne in mind that the background to what was said yesterday was a modernisation of the industry in Scotland. It is perfectly clear that the steel industry has in mind that Scotland will be one of its major parts in the future and that will be reassuring to some of us.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Is it not hypocrisy by right hon. and hon. Members of the Opposition, who sacrificed the independence of the Scottish steel industry on the altar of nationalisation, now to moan about the consequences?

Mr. Younger: I remember my hon. Friend, and my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward Taylor), warning us about this when the Bill to nationalise the industry was going through Parliament. However, I do not remember any sympathy for their point of view from the present Opposition.

Mr. Lambie: If the British Steel Corporation decision announced yesterday was a plan for the modernisation of the Scottish steel industry, why is not the Under-Secretary making a statement today about the future of the integrated green fields site at Hunterston? In my constituency we do not need any study to see how many jobs will be lost. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in the Garnock valley 54 per cent. of the male population at present employed at Glengarnock will lose their jobs? It is no surprise that we in Scotland will have to pay for the Government's policy of entering Europe.

Mr. Younger: The hon. Gentleman spoils his case by wrongly stating what was said perfectly clearly in the newspapers. Dr. Finniston took particular trouble to explain the position about Glengarnock. The hon. Gentleman ought to be fair and make that clear. It does none of us any good to exaggerate the situation with which we are faced.

Mr. Ross: Is not the most serious part of the Under-Secretary's answer the suggestion that the Secretary of State is now side-stepping his responsibilities for the Scottish economy? Will he bear in


mind that, whilst we welcome the modernisation, we have been pressing continuously for Scotland's share in a new modernised steel industry, and the Secretary of State has committed his whole reputation to steel developments at Hunterston? Are we to take it that he has resigned from that position? If he has, would not it be better to resign from the position he holds in the Government?

Mr. Younger: The right hon. Gentleman ought to know that my right hon. Friend is side-stepping nothing and that his responsibilities in this matter are precisely the same as were the right hon. Gentleman's responsibilities when he was Secretary of State for Scotland. It does the right hon. Gentleman's case and reputation no good to twist and distort these facts, because as he has presented them they are quite out of tune with the real facts.

Power Supplies

Mr. Eadie: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what increase per annum is estimated on energy demand in Scotland over the next 10 years; and what influence it will have in his future responsibilities for the siting of new power stations.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: The Scottish electricity boards' estimate of future demand and their proposals for meeting it are set out in their booklet "Plans for the Future 1971–78", copies of which were placed in the Vote Office in January. I shall continue to reach decisions on the siting of new power stations in the light of likely load demands and under the appropriate statutory procedures.

Mr. Eadie: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his answer will be regarded as very evasive? It is well known that because of the policy of the present Government in running down the state of the economy, we have not had the growth in energy that we should have had if we had had a Government which had been able to pursue policies of economic growth. Will the right hon. Gentleman give a guarantee that, despite the follies of a Tory Chancellor in trying to manage the economy, Scotland will not be robbed of any new economic energy potential envisaged by the Government?

Mr. Campbell: On the first point, unlike the previous Government, the present Government's policy is aimed at promoting growth. On the second point, I can give the assurance requested.

Mr. Douglas: Will the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge that his Administration is not to publish the Vinter Report? Will he accept that from the point of view of the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board it is absolutely essential that a decision should be made as soon as possible concerning a power station at Stake Ness?

Mr. Campbell: As I have stated before, further supplies of electricity will be required in the area of the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board in 1978. There is no doubt that the necessary power station will be built and will be in operation by that date.

Bothwell

Mr. James Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he will next be paying an official visit to the Bothwell constituency.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: I have no immediate plans to do so.

Mr. Hamilton: Is the Secretary of State aware that that is the sort of answer we expected from him bearing in mind yesterday's announcement? Is he further aware that, even before the announcement was made, we had 1,682 young people under the age of 18 unemployed in Lanarkshire and that 182 of them left school at the Christmas period and have not yet found employment? Will he now come and tell the people of Lanarkshire and Scotland as a whole what he intends to do for them? Will he for a change tell us something which we can believe? If not, will he resign?

Mr. Campbell: All this seems to be based on the fact that I did not have a plan before the hon. Gentleman tabled his Question to visit his constituency in the near future. I should be delighted to do so. I have done a great deal of travelling in Scotland in recent weeks and months.

Invalid Cars

Mr. Dempsey: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will take


steps to provide persons who are entitled to invalid cars but who forgo them with cash grants to cover the full cost of adapting their own cars.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Education, Scottish Office (Mr. Hector Monro): No, Sir. People who forgo invalid cars are given an allowance of £100 per annum towards the cost of maintaining their own vehicle.

Mr. Dempsey: If the local authorities decide that the extent of a person's disablement justifies the award of an invalid car, should not that person be entitled to forfeit the car for the equivalent of a cash grant to enable him or her to provide his own transport with an extra seat so that he may have his wife or spouse or other company in case of breakdown on lonely roads? Is not this a sensible proposition?

Mr. Monro: The hon. Gentleman will realise that there are a number of alternative options open to pensioners under the latest scheme. Every individual case must be looked at on its merits. I should be glad if the hon. Gentleman would let me have details of any case he has in mind.

Mr. John Wells: Will my hon. Friend look at this matter again? There are many cases of individual hardship where it would cost the Exchequer less to provide cash for people to adapt their own cars and at the same time, as the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) has rightly pointed out, they could take their spouse or their boy friend or girl friend with them, because many of them are young people. I urge my hon. Friend to look at the matter again.

Mr. Monro: I note what my hon. Friend says. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services has requested Baroness Sharp to conduct a comprehensive inquiry into this whole subject. We hope to have the results of the inquiry later this year.

Machine Tools (Educational Institutions)

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his latest estimate of the value of orders placed with the United Kingdom machine tool industry by educational institutions

under his control coming within the scope of the current temporary scheme for 100 per cent. Exchequer grants; and what has been the average cost per machine ordered.

Mr. Monro: At 16th June, 1972, 42 applications, involving some 150 items of equipment for further education colleges and central institutions, were being processed by my Department. The average cost per item applied for is about £2,900.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Should not educational institutions be encouraged to use this scheme, which after all is financed entirely by the taxpayer, to equip themselves with machine tools of genuine industrial application? Surely it is not possible to obtain much more than a tiny machine for the sums my hon. Friend referred to in his answer. Should not educational institutions be encouraged now to buy sophisticated machine tools, preferably of Scottish manufacture?

Mr. Monro: I am glad that my hon. Friend has given publicity to this very worthwhile scheme. The more expensive machine tools are not ruled out. Applications are considered on their merits. So far the most expensive machine for which an application has been received is one costing £28,000.

Mr. Buchan: The Under-Secretary will be aware of last week's decision to run down by one-half one of our last machine tool factories—in Johnstone, Renfrewshire. If the Government are sidestepping on steel work, cannot the Under-secretary encourage his right hon. Friend at least to intervene in this situation to advance the buying of machine tools for all matters that are under his control?

Mr. Monro: The applications must come from the education authorities. I hope they will all bear in mind what hon. Members on both sides have said.

Hospitals (Transfusion Solutions)

Dr. Miller: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is satisfied with the precautions taken in Scottish hospitals against the possible contamination of glucose solutions, saline solutions, and other substances used in transfusions; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Monro: I have asked Scottish hospital authorities to re-examine urgently


their existing methods of production of these solutions in the light of the recommendations set out in the "Guide to Good Pharmaceutical Manufacturing Practice" published by the Department of Health and Social Security.
As regards commercially produced solutions, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services has set up two inquiries following recent instances of contamination, one under the National Health Service Act, 1946, and the other to be undertaken by the Medicines Commission under the Medicines Act, 1968. When the findings of these inquiries are available I shall consider whether further advice need be given to Scottish hospitals.

Dr. Miller: Will the hon. Gentleman accept that there is a considerable degree of gratification at the fact that he is embarking upon a course which might well save the lives of a number of people? Will he take into consideration the fact that it is possible to devise a test which could be applied just before a solution is used on a patient? If that is not possible in every case, it certainly is possible for solutions to be tested one day or two days in advance to be used a couple of days afterwards. Will the hon. Gentleman accept that, although we fully complement him on what he has done so far, there are other moves he can make to prevent tragedies occuring in Scottish hospitals similar to the tragedies which have occurred in other parts of the United Kingdom?

Mr. Monro: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. As he knows, my right hon. Friend said on 4th May that only sample testing is possible because bottles tested cannot subsequently be used. The procedures are being looked into by the Medicines Commission. If the hon. Gentleman has a system that he believes we should know about, perhaps he will let us know.

Prison Population

Mr. Edward Taylor: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many persons were in prisons in Scotland at the most recent date for which figures are available; and what were the comparable figures five, 10 and 15 years previously.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: On 6th June, 1972, there was a total of 4,337 persons in custody in Scottish prisons and young offenders institutions. Figures for particular dates in the earlier years are not available, but the corresponding average daily figures in the years 1967, 1962 and 1957 were 3,424, 2,702 and 1,922.
Young offenders institutions were introduced in 1965.

Mr. Taylor: As the figures demonstrate that the prison population in Scotland has more than doubled in 15 years, will my right hon. Friend say whether he is satisfied with the existing provision of prison accommodation and what plans he has to increase it in the future?

Mr. Campbell: There is overcrowding. A new male young offenders institution of 500 places is now under construction at Glenochil and one for 220 places for women and girls at Cornton Vale. These are scheduled for completion in 1974. The numbers in custody I gave for June this year are 250 less than in June last year.

Mr. John Smith: When planning future provision for the prison service, will the Secretary of State bear in mind the need not only to build more places where people can be detained but to embark, on a much more ambitious scale than has yet been thought of, on devices for rehabilitating people and trying to give them constructive work, particularly young offenders, so that they can be returned to work at the earliest possible time, thus reducing the number in custody?

Mr. Campbell: All these matters are also under consideration. I am glad to say that the Scottish Council on Crime, which was recently brought into existence, will also be considering these matters.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: What information does the Secretary of State have or is he seeking to get on the connection between high unemployment among frustrated young people and the incidence of crime? Although there is no substitute for job opportunity, will the right hon. Gentleman look sympathetically at any social schemes which will take up the interests of young people?

Mr. Campbell: This also can be looked into, but I do not know of any direct relationship having been brought to my notice in this regard.

Health Service (Practice Premises)

Mr. Brewis: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will now grant powers under Section 41 of the Health Services Act, 1968, to executive councils to erect practice premises in remote areas out with the Highlands.

Mr. Monro: Executive councils may provide residential or practice accommodation for a family doctor only if they are authorised by my right hon. Friend in view of the special circumstances of a particular case. Such cases are not limited solely to the Highlands and Islands but arise only exceptionally outside that area.

Mr. Brewis: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that Kirkmaiden, or Maidenkirk, as it is sometimes called, is at the extreme end of Scotland from John o' Groats and, therefore, is remote? Is he prepared to be flexible in this matter and to consider again the representation from Galloway Executive Council?

Mr. Monro: Authority might be given if the circumstances can be shown to be sufficiently special. Areas like the Mull of Galloway and Whithorn will need careful consideration and I shall certainly give them that consideration.

Social Workers

Mr. Ewing: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what percentage of the approved complement of social workers in Scotland were employed at 31st May, 1972.

Mr. Monro: This figure is not available. The latest returns relate to December, 1970, and show that 98 per cent. of the local authorities' complement for basic grade social workers was filled at that time.

Mr. Ewing: Will the Under-Secretary accept that various social work departments, particularly those connected with children's panels, are complaining about an inadequacy of social workers to carry out the work involved? I honestly and sincerely request the Under-Secretary to

investigate the problem. If the complement is found to be too low he should look at the possibility of increasing it and making sure that all the staff that are required are in training and eventually come into service.

Mr. Monro: The establishment of social work departments is certainly growing rapidly and I want it to do so. That is why I am encouraging very rapid expansion in training facilities for social workers. The number of qualified social workers completing training in 1972 will be about 240 compared with 112 in 1970 and I expect the figure will double again by 1975.

Mr. Carmichael: The figure the Minister gave was for the basic grade and he knows that we are concerned about the fully-trained grade. Is he aware that the real problem is finding supervised field placements for students? Would he consider giving local authorities more money to allow additional financing of student field teachers to allow more training and to allow more people to move from the basic training grades to the fully-trained grades?

Mr. Monro: I will have to look at the point the hon. Member has raised. The Government are making substantially more money available for social work than ever before and I know that the whole House will agree with that policy.

School Camps

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland with which bodies he has had discussions on the future of school camps.

Mr. Monro: My right hon. Friend has consulted the constituent bodies of the Scottish National Camps Association, which represent the great majority of organisations presently making use of the school camps.

Mr. Dalyell: In anticipation of a favourable reply on 30th June, can the discussion be widened into the provision of specialist facilities, perhaps for music, for secondary pupils?

Mr. Monro: There are no special facilities in existing camps, although education authorities run courses for sport, music and the arts at them. But this is


a point we will have to look at in our discussions.

Roads (Scottish Council Report)

Mr. David Steel: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will act on the recommendations contained in the Scottish Council's Road Committee report published last week.

Mr. Younger: My right hon. Friend is at present considering the report.

Mr. Steel: Will the Under-Secretary accept that this is a very interesting document which is constructively critical of the inadequacy of the present road programme? Can he hold out hope, as a result of the study, for increased expenditure on the road network?

Mr. Younger: It is too early to draw conclusions because the report was published only on 31st May, but we are considering it very carefully and there are many points of interest in it. We will take them all fully into account before sending a reply to the council.

Cereal Storage

Sir J. Gilmour: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what percentage of the cereal crop grown in Scotland can be stored on farms by the growers.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: My information is that at least three-quarters of the Scottish cereal crop can be stored on farms by the growers.

Sir J. Gilmour: Does my right hon. Friend agree that in view of the change in cereal marketing which will come next year on joining the Common Market, adequate provision of storage facilities is essential if the price of grain in the early part of this year is not to fall disastrously?

Mr. Campbell: I agree that the question of storage is important. We do not have information about storage facilities in individual farms but we are aware of the general capacity.

Irvine Development Corporation

Mr. Lambie: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is able to announce the name of the person who will be nominated to fill the vacancy on Irvine Development Corporation.

Mr. Younger: Ayr County Council nominated four persons, in the usual way, from whom my right hon. Friend could appoint one to fill the vacancy. The person he invited has refused the appointment. My right hon. Friend is considering the situation.

Mr. Lambie: That is a disgraceful answer and one that we would expect from a Tammany Hall-type of politician. Is not the Under-Secretary prepared to accept the original nominatiton of Councillor Bob Beattie made to him by Ayr County Council? Is the Under-Secretary afraid that Councillor Beattie would be no "yes man" but would stand up and speak up for the unfortunate citizens of Irvine new town, who have to suffer the Tory political attitudes of the Tory-dominated new town board?

Mr. Younger: I am not very sure what is an exact descriptiton of a "no yes man", but I will think about that later. My right hon. Friend has many responsibilities but I do not think one of them can be for people who are invited to join a board refusing to accept nomination. That is the simple situation. My answer was factual and particularly straightforward.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: Is there any departure from past practice in the peculiar situation at Irvine, where the new town is astride two authorities and where the county council is also involved, so that three local authority representatives are required?

Mr. Younger: There has been no departure from the practice which is for the county council to nominate several persons of whom one is selected by the Secretary of State.

Employment Subsidy

Mr. John Smith: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will cause the Scottish Development Department to make a special study of the forms of employment subsidy which would be suitable for Scottish industry.

Mr. Younger: No, Sir. Following a comprehensive review of regional policies we have decided on the measures which we consider necessary to stimulate industrial and regional regeneration and we


are now seeking the powers to implement them.

Mr. Smith: Is the Under-Secretary aware that he has not referred to the future of the regional employment premium? This involves a case of confusion doubly confounded, because in 1970 the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced that it was to be abolished in 1974. After the Government's change of front on regional policy, the Chancellor said it would be phased out after 1974. There is now total uncertainty in the minds of incoming industrialists whether REP will be paid after 1974 and in what amounts. Does that not greatly diminish the incentive effect of the system and is it not high time that the Government made an announcement about its future, because it is worth £50 million a year to Scotland?

Mr. Younger: Details of the regional employment premium would be for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer or my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to deal with. I appreciate the hon. Member's point about industrialists needing to know the position, but we have given them an assurance that REP will continue until September, 1974, and thereafter it will be phased out. We shall consult all those concerned to find how best this can be done.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: There may be more to be said for a congestion tax on the areas of over-development in the South and the Midlands rather than an extension of REP. Would my hon. Friend consider the possibility that even the extension of REP would be of greater value to the economy of Scotland than the heavily capital-intensive biassed incentives provided in the Industry Bill.

Mr. Younger: Both those questions are for my right hon. Friends and I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) will put them to them.

Mr. Grimond: Is the Under-Secretary satisfied that his plan takes sufficient account of transport and freight rates which have been stressed again and again in nearly all inquiries into employment in Scotland? In many parts of Scotland, owing to the constant draining off of top jobs, there is a shortage of people coming forward for skilled jobs of all kinds—

entrepreneurial, accountancy, costing and so on. What steps are being taken to put this right?

Mr. Younger: Transport costs do not fall uniformly on all types of industry, but there are some types in which they are a particularly important factor. On the right hon. Gentleman's second point, there are some local shortages of persons for particular jobs in Scotland, but the general position is that we have people available for jobs and I continually stress this in trying to attract new industry

Mr. Ross: But surely the Scottish Development Department and the advisory committee which advises the Secretary of State should look at the best way of replacing REP. It is essential that we should get going with this, bringing pressure to bear on the other Ministers concerned, particularly on the Treasury, because it is a vital matter to Scottish industry.

Mr. Younger: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State certainly has those sources of advice and he makes very good use of them frequently. But the new package of regional incentives is, by common consent, the best we have ever had and we should make the best of it.

Victoria Hospital, Kirkcaldy (Geriatric Beds)

Mr. Gourlay: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware of proposals to reduce the number of geriatric beds available in Victoria Hospital, Kirkcaldy; and what action he proposes to change this decision.

Mr. Monro: Yes. There is an urgent need for additional beds for orthopaedic surgery in the area which can be provided only at Victoria Hospital, Kirkcaldy and the regional hospital board proposes to use 16 geriatric assessment beds for this purpose. The change of use will not take place until 35 additional geriatric beds have been made available at Cameron Hospital by adaptation of existing accommodation.

Mr. Gourlay: While we appreciate the additional beds envisaged, is the hon. Gentleman aware that the matter has been under discussion for more than a year, which in no way indicates the urgency of the problem in Fife, where old


people are dying in tragic and distressing circumstances before they can be admitted to geriatric beds? Will he therefore press the regional hospital board to deal with the matter as one of extreme urgency and get the beds as soon as possible?

Mr. Monro: I am aware of the urgency as a result of the deputation the hon. Gentleman led to meet me at St. Andrew's House. It is in 1973 that the adaptation of beds will take place. In the long-term programme there are 275 beds to be provided for geriatric patients in Fife. They will go a long way to alleviating the problem. We are not forgetting the urgency.

Crowd Safety

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will seek to make compulsory the introduction of controls at all gatherings in Scotland in order to ensure the safe handling of crowds of people; and if he will assist financially those organisations which, owing to lack of money, may find it difficult to adopt his measures.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: I have no proposals for general legislation of the kind suggested. So far as sports grounds are concerned I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply given to him by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Home Affairs and Agriculture on 24th May.—[Vol. 837, c. 367.]

Mr. Rankin: The fact that the right hon. Gentleman has no proposals to meet my proposition is no excuse for his doing nothing about it. Does he realise that this is an important problem? Will he have another thought about it and realise that it is necessary to do something about it?

Mr. Campbell: The hon. Gentleman knows very well my concern about the subject and that the Government have indicated their acceptance in principle of the recommendations of Lord Wheatley's report on crowd safety at sports grounds. We have started the very important consultations with all the interested parties.

Oil Terminals (Forth Power Stations)

Mr. Douglas: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement regarding the capital cost involved

in the construction of oil terminals for power stations on the Forth.

Mr. Younger: Facilities are being provided by the South of Scotland Electricity Board for the bulk delivery of flashing oil by sea to Cockenzie and Longannet power stations. The estimated capital cost is £260,000.

Mr. Douglas: That is a surprisingly large sum just to take on board flashing oil. Can the hon. Gentleman give us the assurance that the jetties or terminals will not be used for fuel oil in any possible conversion of the power stations?

Mr. Younger: That decision is a matter for the commercial judgment of the board concerned and it is done within its budget previously approved by my right hon. Friend. No station can be converted without permission being granted, and that is a matter which would be considered in due course if such a proposal were made.

Mr. Ewing: In particular reference to Longannet, is the Minister aware that there is a feeling, particularly among the BP tanker drivers at Grangemouth, that the Government and the SSEB are engaged in reprisals for what happened during the recent miners' strike, and that there is grave concern in the area about the seepage of oil from the shallow-draught tankers delivering the oil? The Minister should look at the problem before the Government are faced with a very serious situation.

Mr. Younger: This is a matter for the commercial judgment of the board and it has taken its decision within its normal budgets. The board has a responsibility to its consumers to ensure the provision of electricity at all times, and that is all it is doing.

Tyre Factory (Perth)

Mr. MacArthur: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has now received the reporter's findings about the proposed new tyre factory near Perth: and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Younger: My right hon. Friend has now received the reporter's recommendations and will announce his decision as soon as possible.

Mr. MacArthur: Is my hon. Friend aware that the continuing uncertainty


about the factory has caused great anxiety in Perth and that his announcement today will be warmly welcomed? Can he give an assurance that there will be no further delay before a final announcement is made about the factory?

Mr. Younger: I am well aware of the anxiety there has been and of my hon. Friend's particular anxieties. I can assure him that the decision will be taken as soon as possible and that there will be no avoidable delay.

North Sea Oil

Mr. Sproat: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about the speed of planning permission in connection with the development of North Sea oil.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: I am glad to record that when firm applications have been submitted the procedures for planning permission have operated quickly and smoothly. Examples are the production platform projects at Nigg Bay and Ardersier which are likely to produce several hundred new jobs each.
I asked local planning authorities in March of this year to give priority to planning applications for new industrial projects.

Mr. Sproat: While I welcome that reply and the Government's generous grants and loans for the improvements of harbours in the North-East, is my right hon. Friend satisfied that his Department has all the powers it requires for the implementation of oil development decisions, and is he satisfied with the co-ordination between his Department and other Departments?

Mr. Campbell: I do not think I shall ever be satisfied with the degree of success or co-ordination. I never am. But I am pleased that we have been able to react to the many and various problems which have arisen, such as the obstacle which has appeared at Peter-head arising from an 1886 Act.

Mr. Ronald King Murray: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that speed is not the only factor? Will he give an undertaking that, other things being equal, preference will be given to those projects which hold the promise of permanent new employment in Scotland?

Mr. Campbell: I agree that speed is not everything, but there are so often complaints about delay that it is satisfactory that in the oil developments there has been no reason for such complaint.

Mr. Maclennan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the speed of planning procedures by the local authority in Ross and Cromarty bears very favourable comparison with the speed of the Scottish Office and particularly of himself in recognising the advantages which would accrue to the development of that area by bridging the Dornoch Firth?

Mr. Campbell: The hon. Gentleman does not know his facts, because it was through my accelerated planning permission under Section 8 procedures that two of the developments took place so quickly.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what communications he has had recently, on matters of Government policy concerning the development of North Sea oil, with Sir William McEwan Younger.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: None, Sir. But I attended in February the Scottish Council Oil Forum in Aviemore arranged by Sir William.

Dr. Mabon: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Sir William, perhaps inadvertently, has done a public service by making his four serious criticisms of the Government? Since the Prime Minister chose to understand one and reject it and misunderstand another and distort it yesterday, will the Secretary of State get in touch with Sir William in order to get the text of his accusations? Will the Secretary of State himself now answer the main proposition, as I see it, and tell us why the Government continue to be
quite illogical by largely leaving the development of North Sea oil, and in particular what is done to that oil and natural gas when extracted, to the complete and unhampered discretion of those responsible for its extraction"?
I may point out that those were the words used by Sir William.

Mr. Campbell: I have had for some days the text of Sir William's statement. The interesting thing is that some of the Press reports are unrecognisable as reports of his speech when one sees the text.


In welcoming certain action taken by the Government, Sir William said that it would have been better if it had been done a few years ago, which can only be a criticism of the last Government. I remind the hon. Gentleman that it is only seven months since the first public statement that oil was available in commercial quantities. That statement was by BP, which announced that it intended after exploration to go ahead with commercial action in extracting the oil. This is a very costly, high-risk exploration.

Mr. Sproat: Would my right hon. Friend agree with Sir Wiliam that so far too much Scottish business and industry is taking too little of the great opportunities offered by North Sea oil?

Mr. Campbell: I read with interest the criticisms which Sir William constructively made of British industry and Scottish industry. He also made some comments about the licensing system and whether conditions should be attached. That matter was fully discussed at the end of February at the Aviemore forum by representatives of the interested parties. The hon. Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Douglas) was there, so he knows. I also remind him that there was a time a few months ago when he said that I never made a speech without publicly drawing the attention of Scottish industry to the oil developments and their potential.

Mr. Ross: But what does the right hon. Gentleman intend to do about Sir William's criticism of the Government? Do the Government intend to do nothing?

Mr. Campbell: If the right hon. Gentleman reads the text of Sir William's speech, he will see that these critical comments were with a whole lot of much stronger criticisms of industry in general. As far as I am concerned, I intend to go on doing as much as I can to get Scottish industry involved. If the right hon. Gentleman saw Sir William on television last Friday night, he will no doubt have heard him saying that the Secretary of State for Scotland had done a splendid job.

Dr. Mabon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Industrial Incentives and Planning

Mr. Adam Hunter: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many bodies or organisations in receipt of public money are involved in the attraction of industry, planning for industry and advisory services for industry in Scotland.

Mr. Younger: Local authorities, new towns, regional development authorities and Government Departments are all engaged in some or all of these activities; also my right hon Friend is paying £100,000 a year to the Scottish Council towards the cost of a campaign to attract industrial investment to Scotland from Europe.

Mr. Hunter: Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that the money spent and the services rendered are making any real impact on the job situation in Scotland? Will he now give attention to the thousands of jobs lost from existing indutries? Is he aware that many small firms throughout Scotland, including my constituency, have had to reduce manpower because of the lack of orders and other commercial reasons? Will he now concentrate on this aspect of job loss?

Mr. Younger: There are two sides to the loss of jobs. One is to give existing industries adequate incentives to expand and improve and re-equip themselves. We now have a vastly improved system of incentives for that purpose. However successful that was to be, it would still be necessary to attract new industry from outside. It is because we have not been successful in the past in attracting industry from other parts of Europe that the Government are taking these special steps and I am confident they will make a considerable inroad into the Scottish unemployment problem.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Is not the short answer to the original Question "Far too many"?

Mr. Younger: That might be a very fair point.

Mr. Strang: Does the Minister agree that the most effective thing the Government could do to reduce the length of the dole queues in Scotland would be to impose a freeze on al redundancies in the


nationalised industries until unemployment comes down to a more acceptable level? Is it not reasonable to take the line of waiting until the new jobs come from the promotional exercises before going through with rationalisations which will create more misery?

Mr. Younger: The question of a freeze on redundancies in nationalised industries would have to be put to the Minister responsible for those industries. One notable feature of the previous Government's activities was not to put any sort of freeze on redundancies in the coal industry, which had severe effects on many parts of it.

Assessment Units (Handicapped Children)

Mr. McElhone: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many assessment units there are at the present time for children's handicaps; and how many are planned in the next two years.

Mr. Monro: The assessment of handicapped children is undertaken by multi-disciplinary teams in hospital wards and out-patient departments and in local health authority premises in most areas of Scotland. One purpose-designed centre is in operation in adapted hospital premises in Dundee; two other hospital-based centres will be opened in Glasgow and Aberdeen later this year and in 1973, respectively. Assessment centres have also been provided by some local health authorities.

Mr. McElhone: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that he is telling the House that only three units are operating or are planned in Scotland? Is he aware that in a debate on the chronic sick and disabled—I quote from column 930 of the Official Report of 21st February this year—the Secretary of State for Social Services announced 38 new assessment centres for England and Wales and an extra £5 million for the chronic sick? Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that Scotland has been shabbily treated?

Mr. Monro: I cannot accept that, because the situation is different in Scotland and the programme to which the hon. Gentleman referred was specifically for England and Wales. The assessment of the handicapped is part of the normal service in hospital out-patient depart-

ments, child welfare clinics and the school health service in Scotland. I believe that a good job is being done.

Police, Glasgow (Strength)

Mr. James White: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will call for a report from the chief constable as to his proposals to bring the strength of Glasgow police up to its present establishment.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: No, Sir. The chief constable is active in seeking recruits for the force.

Mr. White: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, for example, the average pay of Scottish workers in manufacturing industry is £34.2 per week compared with £20.8 for the police? Will he bring pressure to bear in the proper quarters to ensure that the job becomes more attractive than it is?

Mr. Campbell: Police pay was increased in February on an interim basis from September, 1971. A further review is due this year. It will be for the Police Council for the United Kingdom to consider all the relevant evidence before making a recommendation.

Prescription Charges (Mental Illness)

Mr. Millan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations have been made to him by the Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland about allowing exemptions from prescription charges for chronic mental illness, and what reply he has given.

Mr. Monro: None, Sir. The representations referred to in the commission's recently published report "A Duty to Care" were made to the previous Government.

Mr. Millan: I am aware of that, but is the hon. Gentleman aware that the reason why the original list of exemptions was on such a restricted scale was that it was extremely difficult to get the agreement of the medical profession even to the list published? Is it not time that this question was re-opened, since there are many deserving categories—and I agree that this is a criticism of the last Government as well as of the present Government—who are not allowed exemption? Should we not try to do something about it?

Mr. Monro: I note the point. There was a review of categories last year, when discussion with the medical profession indicated that there were no adjustments which could readily be made to the list.

Secondary School Pupils (Misbehaviour)

Mr. Ian Campbell: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will state the number of secondary pupils who have been debarred from their schools for misbehaviour in 1971–72.

Mr. Monro: This information is not available centrally.

Mr. Campbell: I cannot thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply. Does he agree that this is a growing problem which will possibly worsen with the raising of the school leaving age? Will he keep an open mind on the possibility of creating more regional centres to try to solve this problem, which can only cause great upset among such problem children in their present schools?

Mr. Monro: I note what the hon. Gentleman says but I do not think we should exaggerate the situation. It is, of course, basically a matter for the education authorities and the head teachers. But we hope to double the number of places at the day centres fairly shortly.

Mr. Brewis: Will my hon. Friend keep an open mind on the question of allowing pupils to leave school after they have reached their sixteenth birthday?

Mr. Monro: My hon. Friend knows the present provisions in relation to the leaving dates after the sixteenth birthday, and we have no proposals to change them at the moment.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: The hon. Gentleman sounds extraordinarily complacent on this subject. Is he aware that there are genuine problems in big comprehensive schools that require attention? While not necessarily agreeing that some kind of regional centres are necessary, may I ask whether he will not at least agree to consult teaching organisations and the local authorities to find out the extent of the problem?

Mr. Monro: There is no complacency on the subject. I said that the situation should not be exaggerated. Of course,

through Her Majesty's inspectors, the Department is in constant touch with teachers and education authorities about this problem

Local Authorities (Autonomy)

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he has taken in the last two years to give local authorities more freedom from the control of central government; and what plans he has for the future in this respect.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: In addition to those given in reply to the hon. Member on 14th July, 1971, further relaxations have been made in building control. Last month I placed regulations before the House easing certain requirements of the Schools (Scotland) Code concerned with staff promotions. A significant degree of freedom from control on capital borrowing has been offered to the four city authorities.
Work is now well advanced on the general study of statutory controls which may be relaxed.—[Vol. 821, c. 95–6.]

Mr. Hamilton: The right hon. Gentleman must surely be aware that one of the most important functions of local authorities—rent policy—is being taken away from them by legislation now before Parliament. He must also be aware that many local education authorities wanted to provide free school milk for their children under 11 years of age but the Government said "No" and that the Government have prevented local education authorities from getting rid of selective education. As a result of all this, the local authorities in Scotland are about as free under the present Government as the local authorities were under Hitler in Germany before 1939. How do the Government square these activities with the promise they made that they would free local authorities from central Government control?

Mr. Campbell: The hon. Gentleman has again used extravagant expressions. The questions of rent and milk have been exhaustively discussed in the House. As for education, I have already approved some of Glasgow Corporation's proposals for comprehensive schools. What has been at issue recently is a separate matter—the duty of local


education authorities to continue with their own approved schemes, and this has received a very solid decision by a court.

Mr. Buchan: Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that what he is doing is throwing in one or two nuts and then using an enormous sledge-hammer to crush them? Is it not a fact that there has been a complete destruction of the freedom of local authorities in three major spheres in Scotland and that the last and most serious one is in the misuse of the law to try to force Glasgow Corporation to continue with a reactionary and privileged form of education which it wants to get rid of? Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware that if he wants to get some sense into this situation he should look at the letter from Councillor McFarden in today's Glasgow Herald?

Mr. Campbell: The hon. Gentleman is taking issue with a court decision. He ought to remember that it was his own Government which, in a circular, pressed upon local authorities the need for consultation in their move towards comprehensive education. I too am requiring local authorities to carry out the consultation that is necessary.

NORTHERN IRELAND

Mr. Kilfedder: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration—

Mr. Lawson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that we have had an announcement yesterday that 7,500 jobs in the Scottish steel industry—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have another point of order about that later on. Mr. Kilfedder.

Mr. Kilfedder: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the action of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in abandoning the longstanding British penal practice of treating all

convicted prisoners alike and in granting special privileges to a particular group of convicted criminals in Belfast Prison.
This matter is specific. We had the announcement on Monday by the Secretary of State that to relieve tension within Belfast Prison special steps should be taken; that is, certain prisoners would be housed in separate accommodation in the prison. Yesterday evening in a television interview a spokesman for the IRA enunciated the special privileges which are to be accorded to this group of prisoners, the majority of whom are convicted IRA men, convicted by a judge and jury of shocking and dastardly crimes resulting in some cases in death or mutilation, but all of them coldly calculated crimes. The spokesman said—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not make the kind of speech he would make if his application were granted. He must confine himself to the formal side of his application.

Mr. Kilfedder: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker. I was dealing with the specific matters and stating the conditions and the special privileges which are to be accorded to the prisoners. The spokes man said that they would be separated from the criminal type of prisoner. These privileges were that they would be—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I really do want to help the hon. Member in this matter. The only point at issue in an application of this sort is why the debate should have precedence over the other business of the House.

Mr. Kilfedder: May I move to the urgency of this and state why it requires urgent consideration?
The granting of this new status of political prisoner means that those who up to yesterday were aware of the full consequences of a conviction on a serious charge now know that a less exacting punishment awaits them if they claim that their crime was politically motivated. They are to be something special and no longer regarded as ordinary criminals.
What is equally urgent, since there are trials taking place in Northern Ireland at the moment and trials waiting to take place, is that witnesses may feel that they need no longer place themselves in jeopardy by giving evidence and jurors may no longer feel constrained to carry


out their duties since a defendant on being sentenced for a criminal offence will be treated as a political prisoner with the real possibility of an amnesty and an early release. It is also urgent because the Ulster Defence Association, which has behaved with restraint, may put up its barricades this weekend in protest.
It is, clearly, important because this is a radical change in our penal practice and establishes a precedent which others may wish to follow. Members of the so-called Angry Brigade will claim the status of political prisoners, and one wonders whether those convicted of the Aldershot murders will be able to claim the same status. We desperately need this debate to prevent the law of this country from being turned into a farce.

Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Member for his courtesy in having given me notice of his intention to make this application. I have considered it carefully and have listened to what he has said.
My decision does not really bear on the merits at all; it simply bears on the question of whether I should give the hon. Member's application precedence.
I am not prepared to give the application precedence.

Later—

Rev. Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In relation to the application made to you by the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder), have you had a request from the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to make a statement tomorrow to the House on the situation in Northern Ireland? Will the Leader of the House help us on this matter, as there is great concern in Northern Ireland not only on this matter but on others?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order. I have had no such request.

STEEL INDUSTRY

Mr. Gregor Mackenzie: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the statement published yesterday by the British Steel Corporation on the future of the Scottish steel industry.
I preface my application for this debate by saying that no announcement made in the past decade in Scotland has caused so much anger and bitterness as the announcement made yesterday.
I would submit that the matter is urgent because, while the statement was made only yesterday, only three weeks ago in this House we put specific and important questions regarding the future of the Scottish steel industry to the Government and were told then that it was primarily a matter for the Corporation and that answers could not be given.
The statement has caused so much concern and dismay among thousands of people in Scotland that it is right and proper now that hon. Members, particularly those representing Scottish steel constituencies, should have their say and should be given specific answers to this vitally important problem. It is also specific insofar as the statement made by the deputy chairman of the Corporation concerns Scotland alone.
I would also submit that this is a vitally important matter for all the people of Scotland. It appears from the statement that 7,500 people in my country will lose their jobs in the steel industry—people who have given a lifetime of service to it. There are also those who supply that industry. For every job in the steel industry in Scotland there are probably three or four jobs supplying the industry, and these men will likewise lose the employment in which they have worked for a number of years.
It is also important to bear in mind that these men will be losing jobs in a country which already has an unacceptably high level of unemployment, with no light at the end of the tunnel. It is not only the steel workers and those who supply the industry who will suffer, but the whole community. While the statement made yesterday started off as a


basis for discussion there are few people in Scotland who really believe that at the end of the day the result will be different from that published yesterday by the Corporation. For these people—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I really must apply the same rule to each side of the House. I have already reproved another hon. Member for making the kind of speech I think he would have made if the application had been acceded to. I must ask the hon. Member to obey the same rule. The point he has to make is why I should grant an emergency debate.

Mr. Mackenzie: It is important because 7,500 people and their families in Scotland are terrified out of their wits today, wondering what is to happen to them tomorrow. There have been no compensatory developments announced. It is also important to note that this could spread and whole communities could die in Lanarkshire and Ayrshire and elsewhere if 'this plan comes to fruition. We want to impress upon the Secretary of State for Scotland and his colleagues that they must show a sense of urgency in standing up to the British Steel Corporation. This country is governed by the Government and not by the British Steel Corporation or anybody else. It is for all of these reasons that we on these benches regard it as important that this matter should be urgently discussed without delay.

Mr. Speaker: I had received intimation from both sides of the House that this application would be made. The hon. Member has made the application. I have listened to him carefully, though because of the notice I was given I was able to consider the matter beforehand.
I want to impress upon the House that my decision does not reflect in any way upon the merits or the seriousness of the situation or the sincerity with which the application has been put forward. It is simply a procedural decision whether there should be an emergency debate today or tomorrow on this matter.
I am afraid that I cannot accede to the application.

Later—

Mr. Ross: On a point of order. Have you had any request, Mr. Speaker, from

the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to make a statement on the very serious announcement made in Scotland—and outside this House—yesterday about redundancies in the steel industry? If a request were to be made to you by the Leader of the House, the Secretary of State for Scotland, or someone from the Department of Trade and Industry to make a statement about that now, would you accept it?

Mr. John Mendelson: In view of the great national significance of this announcement by BSC and the equal concern in other steel areas of the country I want to add my question, Mr. Speaker, to you whether you have in this situation received a request from the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. I have had several telephone calls from my area in south Yorkshire asking me to press the Government to make a statement this afternoon.

Mr. Eddie Griffiths: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will remember, from your knowledge of the industry and from following the debate on steel, that the Government made it quite clear that the British Steel Corporation was carrying out a strategic inquiry into future investment policy that it would then undertake, and that it would be submitted to the Government in due course, and that they would announce at the back end of this year where the BSC would be going in the next eight years. I would submit to you, in support of the request for a statement on the redundancies of 7,000 in Scotland, that that is an integral part of the—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have ruled on the Standing Order No. 9 application in regard to that point. It is not a point of order. I have to say this again and again when similar questions are put to me. I have no doubt that the point made by the hon. Member for Rutherglen (Mr. Gregor Mackenzie) and supported by his hon. and right hon. Friends will have been noted.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. Since the Leader of the House is present, perhaps I might put to him, through you, Mr. Speaker, the possibility that we might have a statement about this matter tomorrow, and an early debate if we cannot have one today?

Mr. Orme: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. Many hon. Members on this side of the House representing English constituencies have been approached about a statement that it is said will be made tomorrow about Irlam Steel Works in Lancashire. That matter is directly linked to the Scottish matter raised under Standing Order No. 9. Has the Leader of the House or the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry made any representation to you that a statement will be made in the House at 3.30 tomorrow?

Mr. Speaker: I cannot allow this to go on. These are all matters highly appropriate to the Business Statement tomorrow. I cannot allow discussion on the business of the House to occur day by day on what are alleged to be points of order. They are not points of order.

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE (FAMILY PLANNING) AMEND MENT BILL.

Mr. Fell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I beg your tolerance and the tolerance of the House for raising a matter, of which I gave you notice, Mr. Speaker. It is a matter which was previously raised by the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) on Monday, and I wish—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell) is on a point of order of which he gave me notice.

Mr. Fell: You very kindly, Mr. Speaker, in your ruling yesterday, gave your answer to the point raised by the hon. Member for Derby, North. I am not, of course, going to take up the time of the House with any reference to the subject itself under discussion on Friday. It would be quite wrong of me to do so, and I would not dream of taking advantage of the House in that way.
I only draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, in passing, to the case which was cited by the hon. Member for Derby, North, and a Ruling by Mr. Speaker Lowther in 1919, as referred to on page 290 of Erskine May. I have searched as hard as I might but I really cannot find anything very substantial at all having a bearing on this case. The only thing I was able to find was that on 11th March,

1919, there was a discussion of Lords Amendments when proceedings were brought to an end after 11 o'clock and immediately after there was unopposed business. The moment they came to opposed business the proceedings were ended.
Therefore, I have no argument whatsoever about that part of the ruling which you gave yesterday, when you said,
On the one hand, we must be careful not to bend rules and practices which have been evolved throughout the years …".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th June, 1972, Vol. 839, c. 237.]
Of course, every hon. Member is absolutely at one with you in that part of your ruling. Then you said:
What happened was according to Standing Orders.
Naturally, again, everybody is grateful for that, and it confirms what all of us would like.
On the other hand, Mr. Speaker, you are the champion of minorities in this House, minorities large and small, though it may be a very small minority on one side of the House.
I am raising this matter because later in your ruling you came to a situation which alters the whole procedure of this House, because you said:
Meanwhile, I do not believe that the House will be satisfied with what happened last Friday, and I have asked the Leader of the House to consider the situation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th June, 1972; Vol. 839, c. 237.]
This is where I am in difficulty over this ruling, because immediately before that you had said something which raises a doubt in my mind, where you felt that there are some possibilities to feel doubt about the procedure—[Interruption.] I am very sorry if hon. Members do not like this, but I am simply trying to raise this matter as speedily as I can with Mr. Speaker. You had just previously said, Mr. Speaker:
I hope, therefore, that the Select Committee on procedure will examine this somewhat technical matter."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th June, 1972; Vol. 839, c. 237.]
What I maintain is that the last sentence of your ruling invites the Government to bypass the Committee on Procedure.

Mr. C. Pannell: No.

Mr. Fell: In the sentence before, in your ruling, Mr. Speaker, you gave


advice about reference to the Select Committee, but it seemed to me that the rules were being invited to be bent, and the practices which we have enjoyed throughout the years to be altered, without reference to the Select Committee, by the Government coming to their ideas of what they might do about this without reference to the Committee on Procedure.
So I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether you could consider this matter further—if not now—with regard to the invitation you made to the Government themselves to find a way of bending the rules.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member has made his point. I am not quite certain that what he says is a point of order. I was on a technical matter. For example, if a Motion for the closure is accepted and voted upon and the Division takes till, say, seven minutes past ten o'clock, the matter about which the closure was moved is put to the vote. In this case we had two Amendments being considered together. It seems to me that it is for consideration whether the rule applying when one Amendment is under debate should apply when two Amendments are being considered together. It is a purely technical matter. I think the Committee on Procedure will look into it from the technical point of view. Meanwhile, I think that it is not inappropriate that the Speaker should say that he hopes that the Leader of the House will consider the situation.

Mr. Fell: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. The only thing I am worried about is the fact that you had appealed to the Select Committee to look at this, and then, after that, before the Select Committee could have looked at it, you suggested that the Leader of the House should look at it. That, surely, would be the effect—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think, with respect, that the hon. Member is not remembering the rôle of the Leader of the House. He is the Leader of the whole House. Therefore, I think it was

appropriate for me to suggest that he should consider the situation.

Later—

Dr. Dickson Mabon: Further to the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell), Mr. Speaker, most of us who were in the House on Friday whole-heartedly approved the ruling which you announced yesterday on the procedure to be followed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That at this day's sitting the Proceedings on any amendments proposed to be moved on consideration of the United Reformed Church Bill [Lords], as amended, may be proceeded with at any hour, though opposed, for a period of one hour after the said proceedings have been entered upon.—[Mr. R. Carr.]

Rev. Ian Paisley: May I ask for your guidance on this matter, Mr. Speaker? Does the Motion mean that discussion on the United Reformed Church Bill will be limited to one hour only, or will the Bill be considered after Twelve o'clock for a period and further time allowed for consideration of the Amendments?

Mr. Speaker: It certainly does not mean that consideration is limited to one hour.

Mr. Spearing: Does it mean that the period for debate will be three hours, as is normal on Private Business, and, if there should be Divisions at 2 a.m., the business will go through? If that is so, may I express my thanks to you, Mr. Speaker, for the request which you made subsequent to the proceedings on Friday and to the Leader of the House about putting down the Motion? Contrary to anything that may be said or written, I wish to place on record that I desire the Bill to go through—if possible, with amendment.

Mr. Speaker: It means that the Bill will be considered for the period mentioned by the hon. Gentleman plus the hour referred to in the Motion.

Question put and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES BILL

[7TH ALLOTTED DAY]

Considered in Committee [Progress, 20th June].

[SIR ROBERT GRANT-FERRIS in the Chair]

Clause 5

CUSTOMS DUTIES

3.56 p.m.

The Chairman: Before calling the first Amendment, I must tell the Committee that I received this morning strong representations from the right hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore) to reverse my ruling about Amendment No. 452, in page 6, line 33 after 'provision', insert
'or if in the opinion of the Secretary of State such Community customs duty is inimical to the expansion of world trade and the general reduction of tariffs'.
As hon. Members know, so far as I can I try to meet their wishes, and I have given this matter careful consideration. Whereas I can help hon. Members on selection and grouping, there is absolutely nothing I can do if I cannot find an Amendment in order.
After much careful consideration I have to inform the right hon. Gentleman that, reluctantly and sorrowfully, I cannot meet his request. I hope he will accept that I have done my best.

Mr. Peter Shore: Naturally, I accept your ruling on the matter, Sir Robert, and I am grateful to you for considering it so carefully, as I know you have done. I make the minor plea that you might consider the debate on Amendment No. 365 in as broad a context as possible, as I am sure it would not be the wish of either side of the Committee to exclude consideration of the broader effects of a customs union on world trade, which is one of the matters we seek to discuss.

The Chairman: I am quite prepared to help the right hon. Gentleman as far as I can. I go further and say that if the Committee reaches the Question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill", it will

be in order for the subject of the Amendment to be discussed. But I know that the right hon. Gentleman thinks, as I do, that that is somewhat unlikely.

Mr. John Mendelson: On a point of order, Sir Robert. I wish to raise, with your permission, a matter which has become urgent in the light of our discussions in the House earlier this afternoon.
Next week the Committee will have a single opportunity to discuss the future of the British steel industry. In the light of that, and because I do not want Government spokesmen to be able to say that they did not have notice of this question, I ask the Government, through you Sir Robert, before the debate next week, to provide all the documents, written statements and correspondence that have been exchanged between the Government and the European Coal and Steel Community and any relevant correspondence with Common Market countries and the Commission in Brussels concerning the future of the British steel industry. Unless these documents are available the debate cannot properly take place.

The Chairman: I am sorry, but I cannot entertain that point of order. The points made by the hon. Gentleman should properly be addressed to Mr. Speaker and not to me as Chairman of Ways and Means. No doubt what the hon. Gentleman said has been noted. I think we should proceed—

Mr. Mendelson: Further to that point of order—

The Chairman: The hon. Gentleman must help me. I cannot take a point of order when I am on my feet.

Mr. Mendelson: But, Sir Robert—

The Chairman: I cannot take points of order on subjects with which I am not competent to deal in this lower Chair. No one knows better than the hon. Gentleman the procedure of the House, and I am sure that he will accept that. We must proceed with the business.

Mr. Mendelson: I am very glad to accept it. It means that we are to ask Mr. Speaker for documents to be provided for the Committee. That is what I wanted to put on record and verify. I accept it.

The Chairman: The hon. Gentleman has it on record now. There is nothing I can do about it.

4.0 p.m.

Sir Ronald Russell: I beg to move Amendment No. 365, in page 6, line 40, at end insert:
'and on and after which the Community customs duty has been rescheduled to obtain the average of the duties of the member States of the enlarged community'.
I am greatly indebted to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) for drafting this Amendment. It is accepted as an obligation under Article 24 of the GATT that when a customs union is formed its primary purpose should be to facilitate trade between the constituent countries and not to raise barriers between the customs union and the countries which are not members of it.
The wording of the GATT in this matter lays down in Article 24(5) that the
… duties and other regulations of commerce imposed by such a union shall not on the whole be higher or more restrictive than the general incidence of the duties and regulations of commerce applicable in the constituent territories prior to the formation of such union.
The Committee might like to know that the GATT celebrates its silver jubilee this year, and that, whereas orginally when the agreement was signed there were 23 contracting parties, there are now over 80. Therefore, the GATT has increased in status over the 25 years.
The damage caused by the GATT to our Commonwealth preference system was merely trifling compared with the complete write-off of the whole system so far as it applies to our imports which will be caused by the Bill, and particularly by Clause 5, if it comes into operation, because it substitutes a Community preference for the Commonwealth preference system that now exists.
What does the Treaty of Rome—a treaty which has been in operation for only 15 years compared with the GATT's 25 years—lay down on this subject? Article 19(1) of the Treaty of Rome states:
Subject to the conditions and within the limits provided for hereinafter, duties in the common customs tariff shall be at the level of the arithmetical average of the duties

applied in the four customs territories comprising the Community …
—the four territories then being France, Germany, Italy and Benelux. It seems to be completely logical that with the enlargement of the Community it is as necessary to recalculate the average of the customs duty as it is to adapt the provisions relating to membership of the institutions, the voting rights in them and the size of the Parliament. For instance, the number of Commissioners will be increased from nine to 14; the number of Members of the European Parliament will rise from 142 to 208; and there are other alterations in voting rights too numerous to mention.
The Amendment seeks to repair an extraordinary omission in the negotiations. If this omission is not rectified, it could result in a serious dislocation of our trade with our traditional trading partners outside the Community.
In 1971 our imports from preference area countries, which will not be eligible for association with the EEC, amounted to £1,800 million, or 20 per cent. of our total imports. Those countries are, of course, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, India, Pakistan, Ceylon, Malaysia, Singapore, Hong Kong and South Africa. More than half the volume of these imports enjoyed Commonwealth preference and most of that consisted of free entry. If the underlying spirit of the GATT is to be our guide, account should be taken of this large proportion of our imports which now enjoys Commonwealth preference and free entry. The simple MFN—most favoured nation—rate should not be applied under those qualifications when our tariff level is stated.
I should like to give a specific example. Our tariff on the £50 million-worth of canned fruit we import annually works out at about 10 to 12 per cent., the figure varies on different items and one cannot lay down a definite percentage. Three-quarters of that canned fruit comes in under preference and enters the country free of duty—except for sugar duty. Therefore, the true level of our tariff over the whole field of imports of canned fruit is not 10 to 12 per cent. but about 2½ to 3 per cent., whereas the Community's common customs tariff on canned fruit is 24 per cent. If there is no recalculation, our tariff against non-Community countries will be ten times as


high after we join the Community as it is now. This seems to be monstrously unjust.
Furthermore, of the Ten we are by far the major importer of canned fruit and of many other foodstuffs as well. Our tariff pattern should dominate the Community much more than should that of any other member of it. In the three years 1968 to 1970 we took 47½ per cent, of the total imports of canned fruit by the Ten countries of the enlarged Community. The other nine countries took the other 52½ per cent. Nor can it be argued that the exorbitant 24 per cent, tariff on canned fruit can be justified by the Community on protectionist grounds. Production of canned fruit in the enlarged Community represents only 30 per cent. of its total consumption of canned fruit. I know that the transitional arrangements starting for these horticultural products in January, 1974, will cushion the blow, but the full impact is bound to come after the five years are ended just the same. Clause 5(1) provides that the common customs tariff shall apply after the end of the transitional arrangements.
I raised this problem briefly in a 15-minute discussion on a Private Member's Motion four weeks ago. I have since then received a letter from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Aerospace, saying that this is a matter entirely for the GATT. My hon. Friend pointed out that a GATT working party has been set up to examine the enlargement of the EEC and he suggested that the matter should be left to the working party. I should like to know which countries are represented on that working party and whether they include all those Commonwealth countries whose names were mentioned a moment ago, and South Africa, whose trade will be so vitally affected by this provision.
I understand that the same procedure was followed as laid down by paragraph 7(b) of Article 24 when the EEC was formed and that the non-EEC contracting parties to the GATT had their ideas about how the duties of the five customs territories should be averaged and that the EEC had another idea. However, I understand that the EEC just went ahead and did what it wanted to do and ignored the wishes of the other members of the

GATT. So we see the common customs tariff as it now is. This seems to me to be an unsure way of proceeding. Before we accede to the treaty on 1st January, 1973—if we decide to do so—surely this matter should be negotiated between the members of the enlarged Community and should not be left to the GATT.

Mr. Neil Marten: Is this not a perfect case for saying that the Third Reading of the Bill should be postponed until we receive a totally satisfactory answer on this point from the Common Market?

Sir R. Russell: Yes, I quite agree with my hon. Friend.

Mr. Douglas Jay: The hon. Member for Wembley, South (Sir R. Russell) has moved a most valuable Amendment which would limit, in accordance with the GATT, the extent to which this country would be rigidly bound by the EEC's present trading policies. It would help ensure that the United Kingdom was not compelled by Common Market regulations to erect new barriers to world trade and to damage the opportunity which will be offered next year when new international trade negotiations are due to start between the United States, Japan, the EEC and ourselves for freer world trade generally.
As it stands at present, the Government's existing settlement with the Common Market and also the Treaty of Accession involve a large-scale imposition of new tariffs and trade barriers by this country and, therefore, a major blow to the cause of world freer trade. The trade on which we should be compelled to raise tariffs would be far larger than that on which we could reduce them. Those who ignore this have not understood the nature or the arithmetic of the operation, and I am afraid that that includes the Prime Minister whose obstinacy in action is equalled only by his indifference to fact—as, for example, when he told us last week that his aim in the EEC settlement was to remove barriers between nations. In fact, by this settlement, on balance, we should be overwhelmingly erecting new barriers rather than removing them.
First, we should be forced to impose agricultural levies on the vast proportion of our food and feedingstuff imports, not merely from the Commonwealth preference area but from the United States


and all over the world outside the EEC countries. Our total food and feedingstuff imports from the world outside the EEC in 1971 were as much as £1,750 million worth of trade. In addition to this, on non-food trade we should be compelled with the arrangement as it stands to impose the Common Market's industrial external tariff on the entire range of our manufactured imports from the great part of the Commonwealth preference area. These two major retreats into protectionism by this country, which is still the world's largest food importer and one of the two or three largest importers of all goods, would be a major blow to the expansion of world trade.
Britain's trade with the Commonwealth preference area today still stands at close to 30 per cent. of our total trade each way, and our trade with the Common Market still at only about 21 per cent. All sorts of propaganda attempts have been made to conceal this fact by juggling with figures, by using figures for the Commonwealth rather than the Commonwealth preference area, and so on. The real fact is that British exports to the Commonwealth preference area in 1969 were still 30 per cent. of our total exports compared with 34 per cent. as long ago as 1938, which is not very different in spite of all that has been talked about this.
Since 1969 the proportion of our exports going to the Commonwealth preference area has been tending to rise whereas that to the Common Market has tended actually to stagnate. The percentage of our exports going to the Commonwealth preference area rose from 30·4 per cent. in 1969 to 31·8 per cent. in 1971. The Common Market figure stood still at almost exactly 21 per cent. What has really happened to Commonwealth trade in these years is that the proportion of our trade with the preference area rose exceptionally, for obvious reasons, during the war and the immediate post-war period. It has now reverted to normal and is again gradually rising.
The Clause says:
… there shall be charged, levied, collected and paid on goods imported into the United Kingdom such Community customs duty … as is for the time being applicable …".
That means, clearly, that we are forced to impose the common external tariff on manufactured imports from virtually the

whole of the developed Commonwealth and from those developing countries where no special arrangements exist. It means imposing a new industrial tariff on manufacturers from Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa. Perhaps the Minister will make clear whether, as the hon. Member for Wembley, South suggested, it also means new tariffs on manufactures from India, Pakistan, Hong Kong, Ceylon, Malaysia and the West Indies, to mention only a few. Even with some exceptions, clearly that would mean a heavy blow at the Commonwealth, a new power to discriminate in trade between different Commonwealth countries under Clause 5(5), and, because of the magnitude of the trade, a heavy blow at world trade as a whole.
4.15 p.m.
At present, the United Kingdom accepts 90 per cent. or more of all exports from the Commonwealth preference area entirely duty-free. In return, the developed Commonwealth accepts about 60 per cent. of our exports duty-free into its markets, most of them with a preference at the same time. In effect, the preference area at present is a quasi free trade area on a world scale. All this would be abolished by the Government's present proposals.
The liquidation of this Commonwealth world-wide free trade area, which incidentally is linked with a number of local free trade areas such as CARIFTA in the Caribbean, the Australia-New Zealand free trade area and our own free trade area with Ireland, would be as damaging to the United Kingdom as to the rest of the Commonwealth. If we have to impose both food levies and the common external tariff on Commonwealth goods these countries must be expected to abolish the free entry or preference, or both, which they now give to British industrial exports.
I ask this specific question of the Minister. Have the Government had any assurance from Canada, Australia, New Zealand, India, Pakistan, Hong Kong and South Africa that they will not impose their ordinary most favoured nation tariffs on our exports if we penalise theirs? That has not been made clear, and I think that we should be told.
This is extremely important for the future of British exports. Not only are these Commonwealth markets growing. Several are the largest of all our present


export markets, notably Canada and South Africa, which, after the United States, come within the first few British export markets at the present time. If all those countries and others in the preference area impose new tariffs on British goods our exports are bound to suffer severely.
The loss of British export markets throughout the world as a result of these policies would on the evidence markedly exceed the gain of markets in the EEC. Our trade balance would worsen. We should lose exports throughout the Commonwealth preference area. We should lose our present preference over the EEC in EFTA markets. We should suffer a large increase in imports from the Six which is bound to exceed our rise in exports to the Six because of our higher industrial costs. Owing to our higher living costs, we should suffer a marked rise compared with our competitors in the labour costs of producing exports to the whole outside world. Against all that, the only gain would be our rise in exports to the EEC.

Mr. J. T. Price: To illuminate my right hon. Friend's point, will he agree more specifically that the application of this provision would mean that massive exports of high-quality porcelain from the Potteries district of Staffordshire or of high-quality textiles from my own county of Lancashire would have to carry an external tariff of 24 per cent.?

Mr. Jay: It would mean that the great range of British manufactured goods would have to meet new and higher barriers in the markets throughout the developed Commonwealth and, very likely, still higher ones throughout the rest of the Commonwealth preference area.
Every authority which has seriously calculated the gains and losses to this country on non-food trade alone has come to the conclusion that there is a material loss on balance to our trade in the world as a whole.
I quote only three authorities. First, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said in the House on 16th December, 1970, that the net loss would be between £200 million and £300 million a

year. Secondly, the Labour Government's White Paper of February, 1970, gave a middle figure of £200 million.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Geoffrey Rippon): The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Geoffrey Rippon): rose—

Mr. Jay: I will just finish this point.
Thirdly, the CBI Report on EEC entry calculated that the loss of exports to the preference area alone would about cancel the gains to the EEC without allowing for the other losses.

Mr. Rippon: I should make it clear that I was referring simply to the Community Budget, not to the final outcome.

Mr. Jay: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is thinking of another quotation. His statement on 16th December, 1970, referred to visible trade in non-food items, not to the Community Budget. He rightly and reliably gave a figure of between£200 million and £300 million net loss.
Therefore, the consequence for the United Kingdom of accepting the Clause without the Amendment would be to reduce British exports on balance and to narrow our markets throughout the world. That is additional to the huge losses that we shall sustain to the balance of payments for higher food prices and the proposed £500 million payment to the Brussels farm relief fund, to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman referred in his intervention. Far from the world market for British industry being widened by the operation, it would be narrowed in the short and long term, and the whole fiction of the wider market, for the sake of which the British public is asked to give up all the parliamentary and democratic rights which we have been discussing, is just a statistical illusion.
It is a measure of the intellectual bankruptcy of some hon. Members who fall into this fallacy, including some Ministers, that they can give no answer to these arguments in terms of figures, but take refuge in flippant clichés and misleading platitudes instead of facts and figures.
There are two reasons why the Government cannot much longer treat the economic prospect before us with the degree of flippancy that we have heard in the


last few days. First, the immediate balance of payments outlook and the position of sterling are not strong enough to bear the extra burden of £1,000 million a year on our balance of payments, which everyone in Europe, except the Chancellor of the Duchy, knows will be the consequence of the joining the EEC on these terms. Indeed, to rush into that situation and at the same time accept a régime of a more rigidly fixed exchange rate is a policy of economic madness.
Secondly, the Government will in any case be forced, however reluctant they may be, to widen their outlook a little and consider what world trading policy is to follow a second Kennedy Round. In February this year the United States, Japan, the EEC, and, I suppose, ourselves, agreed that a new round of international trade negotiations should start in 1973. An international committee in the OECD has been doing work in preparation for this.
What is our policy going to be in these negotiations? Briefly, it seems there are two broad alternatives before us. Either we can confine all our policies within the straitjacket of the protectionist EEC policies, at present largely dictated by France, or we can ally ourselves with the free trade forces throughout the world and work positively for an expanding world economy and more flexible exchange rates together with everyone who will ally themselves with those policies.
Perhaps we can consider those alternatives. If we take the narrow road and allow our policies to be "cabin'd … confin'd"by the narrow EEC obsession and nothing else, we shall cripple the British economy and sterling, irreparably injure the Commonwealth, set back the whole cause of freer world trade, lose our power to conduct a British commercial policy, and be in danger of becoming aligned against the United States and on the side of the protectionism of the Common Agricultural Policy.
If we followed the wider road—world trade negotiations are in any case due for 1973—we could, if we tried, seize a major opportunity for achieving a far more liberal world trading régime and a freer exchange rate system. We should also have the freedom to pursue our own commercial policy and not be bound to some artificial and remarkable com-

promise to be called the common commercial policy of the EEC.
Two possibilities offer themselves for an outward-looking policy, both of them perfectly practical. One would be a second Kennedy Round, in which industrial tariffs could be further reduced overall, and a first attack made on the high protectionism of the CAP. The other would be to extend the free trade area principle of zero industrial tariffs for all countries willing to join, which already exist throughout EFTA, much of the Commonwealth and between ourselves and the Irish Republic. In either case, it would be perfectly practical to offer something approaching general free entry into all the developed countries from the developing countries. That would be a far more valuable concession to the developing countries than the largely fraudulent generalised preference scheme of the EEC, which is nullified by quotas which limit free enterprise.
If we follow the wider road, the whole world could take a major step towards more rapidly expanding world trade; the poorer countries would be increasingly benefited; no new trade barriers would be raised against anyone; an unnecessary and crippling burden on our economy would be wholly avoided; the Commonwealth would not be broken up; and an incipient trade war between the United States and the EEC could be averted. Can there be any doubt in the mind of any sane person whether the wider or narrower policy would be in the best interests of this country and the rest of the world?

Mr. John H. Osborn: Before the right hon. Gentleman sits down—

The Chairman: Order. The right hon. Gentleman has sat down.

Mr. Jay: I am quite willing to get up again.

Mr. Osbom: I should like to follow the right hon. Gentleman's argument, which he has deployed in other places, and to which I have listened on other occasions with the greatest interest. However, I fail to see what his argument has to do with the Amendment. He has given us an interesting dissertation on Commonwealth-European trade. Obviously, I do


not agree with his appreciation of the situation. How does he fit it in with the Amendment which deals with
the average of the duties of the member States of the enlarged community."?
I do not relate the two.

Mr. Jay: If the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. J. H. Osborn) had listened to his hon. Friend the Member for Wembley, South, who moved the Amendment, he would have appreciated that the hon. Gentleman was arguing that the Amendment would limit the damage done by our having to accept the Common External Tariff and would enable a more liberal system to prevail between us, the Commonwealth and the outside world. That was his argument which I took at face value.

Mr. Nicholas Ridley: The Amendment seeks to raise British tariffs, which would mitigate against free trade. That must be in direct conflict with what the right hon. Gentleman has been suggesting.

Mr. Jay: The hon. Member for Wembley, South spoke of the British tariff on canned fruit imported from Australia. The hon. Gentleman wanted it to be lower, not higher. I wholly agree with him, and that was part of my argument.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. T. H. H. Skeet: The right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay), seems to have boxed the compass on a number of points, including exchange rates. The Amendment covers a narrow point, and I think that the right hon. Gentleman is precluded from raising the case that he in fact raised because of the Labour Government's White Paper, Command 3345 of July, 1967, which said in paragraph 42:
So far as tariffs are concerned we shall be prepared to accept the Common External Tariff as it will stand after the Kennedy Round reductions have been made.
If the right hon. Gentleman is suggesting that there should be other modifications in which considerations of canned fruit can be considered, I interpolate that it is possible to select canned fruit as one of those examples in which a benefit might be derived, but that if the mass of examples is taken it would not naturally result in any benefit being secured.
If we consider an average of duties, how will this work out in practice? It will mean that one has first to determine the terminal date when it will be secured. Will that be 1st January, 1973, or would it be advisable to wait until 1977 to take an average? If it is to be 1973, it will mean disruption of the present system in Europe, because the common Customs tariff would have to be suspended while the evaluation was being made, and it would be difficult to make an arithmetical evaluation.
If one says that certain commodities will have to be taken into account it will be necessary to have a system of weightage. Does one take the duties of Germany, Luxembourg and the United Kingdom as being equal, or does one say that because Western Germany is more important than Luxembourg one must give a certain weightage to its tariff? It is difficult to calculate what the precise result would be. If one works it out the other way and says that one takes an average of tariffs by 1977, which may be more realistic, the result will be zero, because they are all to be reduced to nil by 1st July, 1977.
The Opposition are, therefore, in the dilemma that they have not proposed any terminal dates. They have not proposed how it will influence the various countries concerned, whether it be those in the Six, or the additional countries, and if it is to be a deferred date one has to take into account the countries beyond the three now securing entry.

Mr. J. T. Price: As I understand it, the Amendment is not about internal tariffs being reduced to zero in 1977. We are talking, not about internal tariffs, but about the external tariff, and the hon. Gentleman must not try these debating tricks and hope to get away with them.

Mr. Skeet: I am talking about the common external tariff and about the imprecise nature of the Amendment. Everybody has been making wide-ranging speeches around the point. I am trying, in my brief intervention, to find out precisely what is meant by the Amendment, how the terminal date will be worked out, how it will be calculated, and whether it will mean that there will be a disruption of the tariff arrangements in Europe.

Sir R. Russell: Perhaps my hon. Friend would take into consideration how the terminal dates were worked out when the Treaty of Rome was prepared.

Mr. Skeet: One has to take into account that our terminal date will be 1977. If one takes it then as the average tariff, one finds that they are all reduced to zero. I have the figures here. The common external tariff will be reduced by 1st July, 1977, between the United Kingdom, the EEC and the World to nil. It will be falling at a percentage rate of 15, 13, 12, 11 and 10 over the years.

Sir R. Russell: The Amendment refers not to the common external tariff between the Community and ourselves but to the common external tariff between the enlarged Community and the rest of the world.

Mr. Skeet: I appreciate that, but we are concerned with two things—the arrangement between ourselves and the Community, and the arrangement between ourselves and the world. We have to fall into line. We have to harmonise our tariffs with the rest of the Community vis-à-vis the rest of the world, and that is the point that I am making.
What will be the terminal date? How will it be calculated? What will be the effect on new entrants and on the original members of the Six if this is implemented? I say that it is unworkable, and therefore, it is no good recommending to the Government that they should accept something that will not work.

Sir Derek Walker-Smith: Does my hon. Friend appreciate that the definition of "relevant date" in the Clause to which the Amendment is addressed would be affected by the same process of re-scheduling as was the case in the Treaty of Rome for the original re-scheduling, the averaging, when the Community came into being? There is no difficulty about it. The same mechanism could be incorporated of an examination by GATT if necessary, possibly, if what my hon. Friend has said is correct, and I am sure that it is, with greater attention to the finding of the committee.

Mr. Skeet: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for his intervention. While all this re-scheduling is being done, what will happen to the common

external tariff? I should have thought that it would have to be done overnight or fair time given for consideration between all the parties concerned in order to decide what is to be done. In other words, during this period there will be a moratorium or a period of great confusion or disruption. I dare say that we shall learn from subsequent speeches precisely how this will be worked out. The purpose of my intervention is to get elucidation on the Amendment.

Mr. Ridley: I thought that the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) had two principles in his speech which he got a little confused. I think that most people share his principle of wanting freer trade and wanting this country to have the strongest possible balance of payments that it can have.
Sometimes in his arguments against joining the EEC the right hon. Gentleman relied upon one of these principles, and sometimes he relied upon the other to justify his arguments, but the two principles themselves can often be in conflict. For instance, in supporting the Amendment he seemed to be entirely in favour of zero or low tariffs on food imports and canned food, but the effect would be adverse to our balance of payments.
When it comes to Commonwealth preference, the right hon. Gentleman suggested that it was a good thing for us to have Commonwealth preference because it increases our share of the market, but in fact it is not a free trade device. Looking at the Commonwealth scene, I should have said that it was not possible to claim that our relatively high share of Commonwealth or preference area markets was due to Commonwealth preference. Quite often one finds that Germany, Japan, America and other countries which have no preference at all in Commonwealth markets have done very much better than we have, not so much in terms of share of the market as in growth in the share of the market. The picture that one finds in many industrial goods in Commonwealth markets is that the British share is declining and that industrialised countries which have no preference are increasing their share in those markets.

Mr. Jay: I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree, because it is only commonsense, that if we lose our present


free entry and preference we shall do worse in future than if we keep it.

Mr. Ridley: I am coming to that, because it is at the crux of the answer to the right hon. Gentleman's argument.
It does not appear that through Commonwealth preference we have done remarkably well in Commonwealth markets. I believe that that is because the nature of world trade is changing. It is no longer a question of selling manufactures, the best and the cheapest, into the market, and in return buying the products of other countries which are better and cheaper than our own. The simple theory of trade has never existed truly, and exists less now than ever before.
First, there are the non-tariff barriers to trade. We all know that the French, for instance, are experts at having an apparently open market but not importing, and the Japanese are the same. As a country, we are probably one of the worst at this sort of dodge. I am glad that we are, because I happen to be a believer in free trade.
A much more important reason why trade and opportunity do not follow is that investment in a territory is very often far more important than trade within it. I believe that multi-national trading companies produce more abroad at their main centres or headquarters than the total of world trade. In other words, subsidiaries manufacturing in foreign countries are now a more important form of production or exchange of goods than straightforward trade.
This type of consideration made the right hon. Gentleman's calculations about flows of trade and losses of markets meaningless. If we approach the future in a sensible way we can do far more good for our balance of payments if we both invest abroad—I am coming to another very important point—and get them to pull down non-tariff barriers to trade than we can by clinging to Commonwealth preferences. The point where the right hon. Gentleman was a little too ingenious was when he represented Commonwealth preferences as if we had free entry for our exports to the Commonwealth. In many cases, it is only 2½ per cent. One might have an Australian tariff of 20 per cent, or 25 per cent., with a preference of 2½ per

cent., so that we get only a minute advantage. Two and a half per cent, on a tariff on an item which may be worth many thousands of pounds is such a tiny price advantage. It is always the quality, delivery, reputation and efficiency of goods which sells them.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: In our reputable Press such as the Daily Telegraph, and all the Conservative newspapers, we read almost every week of housewives coming from all of the EEC countries to buy in Britain our imported Commonwealth foods to take them back to Common Market countries. They come here because our food is so cheap. Even the 2½ per cent. must mean that goods are much cheaper, because people can afford to come here every week-end, load-up and return to the Common Market countries.

Mr. Ridley: I am delighted to hear which newspapers the hon. Gentleman regards as reputable. I look forward to him learning from the journals he will read in the future. I was talking not about food but about manufactured products. It is true that we have a food régime which hitherto has carried no tax or import duties, and therefore food is cheaper than in other parts of Europe. I do not know whether that is such a wise thing. I have never been certain that it is to our advantage to have the price of a major commodity, such as food, out of context with other prices nearby. That is arguable, but it does not arise on the Amendment and I should not like to stray too far.

Captain Walter Elliot: Would my hon. Friend agree that our food production is subsidised by the British taxpayer to some hundreds of millions of £s and that if a foreigner comes here to buy it he is subsidised by our taxpayers, and that this will go?

Mr. Ridley: It was only that I did not want to stray too far from the argument. I do not know whether the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) likes paying taxes which go to reduce the price of food so that the benefit can be given to the French, German and Dutch, who already have far higher wages than those paid in this country. But this is a complicated argument.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Marten: May I bring back my hon. Friend to his point about industrial goods? As far as I recall, he said that a 2½ per cent. or 3 per cent. tariff was very small and almost insignificant, and did not have much effect on trade. But surely the whole argument for entering the EEC is that tariffs will be reduced and stimulate trade. Is my hon. Friend aware that over each year of the five-year transitional period, whereas the present average tariff on industrial goods is 7 per cent., it will be reduced by an average of only 1⅓ per cent. a year? For the first two or three years, anyhow, there will be an insignificant effect upon our exports to Common Market countries, following the logic of my hon. Friend's arguments.

Mr. Ridley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing me back to my last point. I do not believe that a point or two of percentage off the tariffs of Europe will have a dramatic effect on trade, just as I do not believe that a point or two on the tariffs with certain Commonwealth countries will have a dramatic effect the other way. These are very small percentages when taken on the total price of the goods concerned.
On the whole, our tariffs on industrial goods are higher than those of the EEC and most industrial countries. The right hon. Gentleman was saying that we should be entering into a sort of protectionist era if we join the EEC. That is not true in relation to industrial goods because, by small amounts, most of our industrial tariffs will descend to the EEC level. The effect of this internally and on the enlarged Community's trade with the rest of the world can be grossly exaggerated and is not dramatic.
I come to the reason why I do not believe that this is relevant. Trade in the old-fashioned sense, determined by the heights of tariffs, is not what the future of successful trading will be about. Much more important will be investment overseas, as it has been in the past; and more important still will be the ability to design, research into and make those things which every other country in the world cannot make.
The dominance of the United States throughout the 1950s and 1960s was be-

cause she had for sale goods which other countries did not make, such as complicated plant, aeroplanes, rockets, aerospace products, every sort of electronic device and computers, in which she had a completely dominant position. This is how the United States managed, before others competed with her, to dominate the world markets.
We cannot survive as a country unless we, too, can make some if not all of these things. It does no help us one jot or tittle to have 2½ per cent. off a Canadian or South African tariff in making such things. If we can make aeroplanes in competition with the Americans and sell them against American competition throughout the world, that is of far greater value than any tariff, up or down, can be.
Tariffs are not important. The future of world trade will be determined entirely by our ability to make the sophisticated goods which the world needs in the future. It is why we should join the Common Market.

Mr. Jay: If the hon. Gentleman considers that tariffs do not matter, does he not realise that he has destroyed the one argument for our entering the EEC?

Mr. Ridley: I do not think that tariffs matter. The argument for our entering into the EEC is that we shall be able to get together with them because of the general psychological wish of Europe to unite. It will not come automatically. It will not come from the spirit which is evinced by the right hon. Gentleman and by some of my right hon. Friends and hon. Friends who are opposed to our entry.
The secret of making this great venture succeed is for our people, the French people, the German people, and the people of all the other Common Market countries, to wish to come together to make combined products and for them to understand why there should be no impediments to their doing so. It is an operation of collective willpower which will yield far greater benefits than any tariff, either up or down, in the way that the right hon. Gentleman has talked about, possibly could.

Mr. Eric Deakins: I shall not detain the House for


long, because we have some rather more important Amendments to discuss later. However, I have been half provoked by the intervention of the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley). I do not think that in all the proceedings in the Committee I have heard in such a short space of time such a confused and confusing speech on any topic of the many that we have debated.
There were a number of internal contradictions within the hon. Gentleman's speech, ending with the biggest contradiction of all from one who supports entry to the Common Market, which is supposed—by lower tariff barriers—to give a great fillip to British industry. We are told by the hon. Gentleman that this does not matter.
The hon. Gentleman also suggested that we should put our faith in sophisticated goods. I could argue about that, but it is not strictly relevant to the Amendment, which is concerned with the future level of the common external tariff. It is not just a matter of canned fruit from countries like Australia. There are a number of developing Commonwealth countries about whose interests we should—on today of all days, with Amendment No. 447 coming up for debate after this—be primarily concerned.
It is not just Australia, for example, which is the one big Commonwealth country to send us canned fruit, taking canned fruit as an illustration of the argument used by the hon. Member for Wembley, South (Sir R. Russell). Swaziland is developing, slowly but efficiently, a canned pineapple industry. Obviously we would hope to take exports from that country in future of that type of goods at the present level of tariff, namely, Commonwealth preference. There is also a very fast-growing canned fruit industry—an export industry—from Malaysia to Britain and other advanced countries. Anything we do to increase the common external tariff compared with the present tariff and duty on these goods is wrong and immoral and should not be supported.
However, a wider issue is that the future level of common external tariffs, particularly on agricultural imports, will have a harmful effect on the future development of world trade, and particularly on our being able to persuade the

other developing countries to offer commodity agreements and to be much more generous than they have been since the Second World War in their approach to agricultural trading on an international basis.
There is no doubt that when the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade was started in the early post-war years it gave exemption from the rules of GATT to customs unions. No one at that time could have foreseen the growth of the great trading blocs such as the Common Market. The only customs union in 1947–48 was Benelux. That would hardly represent any real threat to world trade either then or now.
It is the growth of the Common Market and the protective network of preferential trading agreements, many of them with developing countries in Africa, which is the biggest threat to the future freedom and liberalisation of world trade. Larger and larger economic blocs—this would be a very large economic bloc indeed—generate most of their growth by increasingly trading with each other. There are statistics which I could quote, but with which I will not bore the Committee, to show this. For example, between 1965 and 1969 the Common Market traded with itself far more in agricultural commodities—live animals and meat, milk and milk products, cereals—and this could only be at the expense of trade with third countries.
That is not good enough. That is one of the reasons why many of us are opposed to the whole of this exercise root and branch. Therefore, it ill-becomes any hon. Member who is a supporter of the general principles of free trade—the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury confessed that he was a supporter of free trade—to argue that we should also be joining the Common Market; because the two are incompatible. We shall be trading more and more within what will increasingly become a tightly-knit trading bloc in Western Europe which I think will eventually end up in a federation.

Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman must address himself to the point. He believes in the efficacy of tariffs. We have higher tariffs than the CET. How can he say that this will bring us into a more protective climate when the opposite is true?

Mr. Deakins: I am all in favour of getting rid of tariffs on industrial goods. Where world trade has been hampered since the Second Word War is in the development of world agricultural trade. Until the Conservative Government came to power, subject to certain restrictions on dumping, we gave virtually free access to agricultural commodities from all over the world. We shall now have to adopt the Community system of levies and duties which come to the same thing as tariffs, with the rather worse consequence than tariffs that levies are not negotiable in GATT whereas tariffs are.
When we talk about eventually reducing the Community's common external tariff on industrial goods in the multilateral free trade negotiations which take place next year we shall all be able to throw our hats in the air and give two cheers, but not three cheers, because we shall not have succeeded in covering that part of world trade—agricultural trade—where the Common Market, whether enlarged or not, represents a real threat to the full liberalisation of world trade.

Mr. Tom Normanton: I am concerned as is the hon. Gentleman about the development and promotion of trade with countries in the category to which he has referred—for instance, Malaya and Singapore. Has he studied the facts of life as they exist not in a textbook but in the actual trading pattern as is known by industrial undertakings in Britain? The answer clearly is that the trade of these areas has been expanding—expanding, regrettably, not with Britain but with the very grouping of countries which we want to join. Therefore, the policy of the Common Market has not been restrictive in practice, regardless of the so-called growth of trade inside Common Market countries. The Common Market is expansionist and is developing its trade with the countries to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. The Common Market is not in conflict with those countries. It is in support of their further advancement.

Mr. Deakins: I am provoked—I regret this, Miss Harvie Anderson—into giving facts and figures, not from a textbook, but from trading statistics on the subject of international agricultural trade in the Common Market itself. The common agricultural policy was in formulation between about 1959 and 1964–65. Taking

1965 as the base year, the share of total imports by EEC countries from each other, in comparison with their total imports both from each other and from the rest of the world, rose for virtually every agricultural commodity one can care to mention. I will give a few select examples. In 1965 the Common Market countries' trade with each other in fresh meat—this is as compared with their total trade—was 40·4 per cent. It had risen to 55·8 per cent. in 1969. For milk and cream, the figure of 60·8 per cent. in 1965 had risen to 96·8 per cent. in 1969. This means that in 1969 Common Market countries were importing hardly any milk, cream, butter and cheese from any other country outside that trading bloc. This must be to the detriment of world agricultural trade.

Mr. Normanton: I fully appreciate the hon. Gentleman's concern about the desirability of promoting trade. Trade is not concentrated exclusively in agricultural products. It is a matter of the totality of trade. Surely the hon. Gentleman is not trying to convince the Committee that the best interests of the countries to which he has referred is served by their exclusive concentration on producing agricultural products. We all want to see the expansion of the economies of these countries as a whole—a balanced expansion, including an expansion in manufactured goods. This is precisely what the Common Market countries' trade pattern has promoted.

Mr. Deakins: The Common Market's trade with developing countries is on much the same basis as our own. It tends to import raw materials, some agricultural goods and perhaps some manufacturing products from them, but with the emphasis very much on the first category. I am concerned about agricultural goods. If the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Normanton) is advancing the argument that developing countries should expand their production and then their exports of manufactured goods to the rich countries, I would support him. But I am not sure that he would support the move in that direction.
I do not want to see Britain as part of a very much inward-looking protectionist trading bloc, and the figures show that the Common Market, in relation to agricultural products, has been an


inward-looking protectionist trading bloc which has hindered the development of world agricultural trade in the past ten years. It is likely to go on doing so if we become members simply because we shall give a big fillip to the development and continuation of the common agricultural policy in its present form. It is for that reason that, although I do not believe that the Amendment goes far enough, I feel that it is worthy of support.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. A. G. F. Hall-Davis: I have listened with care and interest to my hon. Friend the Member for Wembley, South (Sir R. Russell). It seems that his Amendment would bring us lower tariffs on some goods and commodities. No doubt many of us would wish for that as well as securing free access into the EEC. But it would overturn the whole basis of the negotiations and agreements reached so far.
We have spent a great deal of time in the past year or so following the course of negotiations in Brussels and listening to the reports that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy has brought back to the House. We have considered very carefully whether the outcome of the negotiations justifies the acceptance of the terms as a whole and our entry into the European Community. The terms include special arrangements in many cases for developing countries, special arrangements for New Zealand dairy products, and offers of association to Commonwealth countries which, incidentally, I believe would give them increased access on better terms to the EEC as well as preserving their access to the British market.
But I think that my hon. Friend is saying that we should negotiate on one basis and implement on another. The negotiations were conducted, and were understood to be conducted, by those who were negotiating with us on the basis that we would accept the common external tariff. To seek to implement an agreement on the basis of a new external tariff weighted in favour of the pattern of Britain's trade, which is a product of the Commonwealth preference system of which my hon. Friend has been such a stout defender, would be a breach of agreements reached.

Sir R. Russell: Would my hon. Friend not agree that the Amendment seeks only to do what the Six did among themselves when they originally formed the Common Market; namely, to make an arithmetical average of their own tariffs at the time?

Mr. Hall-Davis: That may be so, but that was, clearly, not the basis on which the negotiations were conducted. It was, clearly, not the basis on which the EEC negotiators agreed to the special arrangements for certain countries. Some of the arrangements are generally held to be specially favourable for the expansion of trade prospects.
If my hon. Friend believes that this part of the treaty is sufficiently wrong that it justifies the treaty being rejected by the House, it would be more realistic for him to vote against the Question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill" than to press the Amendment, which I believe is seeking to invalidate the whole negotiations. If he feels that there is a possibility or a desirability of accepting the treaty but that there is a very strong case also for accepting his suggestion he would do better to adopt the approach of the official Opposition and seek to renegotiate the terms after entry.
I cannot support the Amendment because it is seeking to alter fundamentally an agreement which has already been made.

Mr. Normanton: I hesitate to launch into this debate along the lines of so many contributions we have heard during our discussions on the Bill. I am sure you would not agree that should be done, Miss Harvie Anderson, because it would probably mean going over the same old ground once more. I will concentrate my remarks briefly on the Amendment. I do so by taking up the point which my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) made, but which he did not make quite enough of, concerning the non-tariff barriers. The Committee must face the facts not as they stand in the Bill, not as they stand in the Treaty of Rome, but as they actually operate inside the Common Market.
The biggest obstacles to Britain developing her trade throughout the


world are not purely tariff barriers, but the non-tariff barriers. That applies just as much within the Ottawa Agreement, and the Commonwealth agreements, which have operated throughout the world and which the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) regarded as constituting a quasi-world free trade area. They certainly do not constitute a quasi-world free trade area by any stretch of the imagination. According to the text books that situation applies, but in practice the realities are very different.
It is the non-tariff barriers, the administrative devices and the internal practices which dominate the scene to a far greater extent than do tariffs. I would certainly feel that my hon. Friend the Member for Wembley, South (Sir R. Russell) in tabling his Amendment, has not put into true perspective the importance of tariffs as opposed to non-tariffs. The argument might therefore be used that we are underestimating the effect of tariff barriers and over-rating the effect of non-tariff barriers. The answer is that the only way in which to dismantle non-tariff barriers is from within and not from outside. We can enter into all sorts of negotiations on tariff rates and other international agreements, but the only way in practice to dismantle or reduce the levels and effectiveness of non-tariff barriers is from within the Common Market.

Mr. Marten: I welcome my hon. Friend to these debates. We have not heard much from him. If the only way to deal with the demolition of non-tariff barriers in the Six or the enlarged Community is to go into the Common Market, what on earth does the GATT think it is doing, setting up an organisation to demolish non-tariff barriers throughout as much of the world as possible?

Mr. Normanton: I am grateful for that intervention, and particularly for my hon. Friend's hearty welcome to the debate, if "debate" is the correct term to describe much of what has been going on. There has consistently and persistently been an attempt not to contribute constructively to the debate but to destroy the Bill, and that is not what I was elected to do.

Mr. Anthony Fell: On a point of order. Is not it going a little far, to suggest that the whole debate has been aimed at destroying the Bill?

The First Deputy Chairman: That is not a point of order but a matter of opinion.

Mr. Normanton: I shall not make a blanket accusation that the whole of what has taken place has been with that one object in mind. It has been attempted so much by those who oppose the Bill that I question whether it is correct to use the word "debate". But there comes a time when a particular point requires to be dealt with, and that is why I am speaking on the Amendment.
The non-tariff barriers can and will be demolished. They will be demolished from within the Commission, from within the many institutions which have been operating increasingly effectively inside the EEC. I am concerned that those barrers should be dismantled, but it will not be done from outside, from across the Channel.

Mr. Ridley: Does my hon. Friend regard origin marking as a non-tariff barrier?

Mr. Normanton: I am tempted to say that we may have arrived at a point where a debate is just about to begin, but I will not enter into a debate on that point with my hon. Friend.
The fact is that there are hidden barriers I do not refer to those enshrined in legislation. I am referring particularly to the administrative devices, the agreements which operate in industries for regulating and directing, which conflict with some of the declared objectives of treaties and the like. But they can be demolished only from within. Therefore I feel that the Amendment concentrates on the wrong issue and will be of little or no consequence to British trade when we are in the Common Market.

Mr. J. T. Price: I am fascinated by the hon. Gentleman's line of argument. I have never heard him speak in one of these debates before, and I join in the welcome that has been extended to him. Presumably the hon. Gentleman is advancing his argument as a substantial industrialist in the north of England, my part of the country. If there


is any truth in the argument that to get rid of all the nefarious practices, the dodging of GATT regulations, and so on, with which he is charging our European prospective allies, the same argument will apply with even greater force for economic union with Japan. We are at the receiving end of Japanese practices even more than we are the receiving end of some of the European practices to which the hon. Gentleman objects. I wish he would be more forthright and honest with the Committee, because he has a great deal of inside knowledge of these matters.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Normanton: I will not labour the point excessively, but I note what the hon. Gentleman has said. The facts about the non-tariff barriers are as I have stated them. How else can we dismantle them effectively, other than from within, around the table?—[HON. MEMBERS: "The GATT."] The GATT has a broad general objective which this country and the member States of the EEC fully support. We deceive ourselves if we try to give the impression that we are unique in what we seek to do to expand world trade. We are not unique in the world. Other countries, including certainly one or two inside the Six, are far more expansionist-minded and non-restrictive-minded in terms of world trade than Britain is. I deplore that, but the last thing I would do is to deceive myself as to the facts. That is why I earnestly hope the Amendment will not be supported if there is a Division. It is virtually irrelevant in the context of the overall objective, which must be in the interests of British industry, for British industry to be involved in the areas for discussion and resolving the problems. They will not be resolved by the Amendment.
Many people believe that the Ottawa Agreement operates as a full and free trade area. The right hon. Member for Battersea, North is deceiving himself. He is not present now, unfortunately, so perhaps I should not pursue that matter too strongly.
But, and here I come to a matter in which the hon. Member for West-houghton (Mr. J. T. Price) knows I have an interest and in which he has a deep interest as well. The textile industry of

the north west of England has consistently claimed that it is not the Ottawa Agreement that has been our problem but the way in which it is administered. There was free entry of manufactured goods into this country until the decision was taken that at least the textile sector should be excluded from the Ottawa provisions. The decision was implemented under the present Government, but it was declared publicly by the previous Administration. There are many outlets for British textiles under treaties and tariff arrangements, but they are all consistently being circumvented by non-tariff barriers—the need to obtain a licence, currency, permits and authorities, and to prove that the goods concerned cannot be made in the country to which they are being shipped. All sorts of devices are being brought to bear, and they are the real obstacle in the path of export promotion. In that sense I fully support all that my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury said.

Mr. Michael Grylls: This perhaps rather dry Amendment we are discussing has caused what is to many hon. Members a surprisingly sparkling debate. If the main argument has been between hon. Members on this side of the Committee, that does not matter. I want to comment briefly on the exchanges between my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) and my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten), when we really got to the nub of the matter of our entry into the EEC in relation to the value we will get out of it. It was sought to suggest that there was really not much in it. That is not a very unusual line for my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury to follow. We have come to know it very well indeed in its recurring theme throughout these debates.
It is, of course, easy to refer to the average common external tariff and say that it is some 8 per cent. or 9 per cent. and therefore is not very much, so why need we worry? But averages can be and are misleading. For example, the Community tariff on commercial vehicles is 22 per cent. That is no mean tariff to get over. The tariff for organic chemicals is 18 per cent., on plastics it is 16 to 18 per cent., on tractors it is 16 per cent., and on diesel engines it is 14 per cent. These are not minor tariffs which


we now have to get over in order to sell within the Community. Therefore, a progressive reduction of the tariffs is surely something from which the whole of British industry could expect to benefit, and benefit quickly. It is right to point these things out when talking of averages.

Mr. Marten: I did talk about averages. Of course the industries which my hon. Friend has mentioned will benefit the most, but to get the average of 7 per cent. there must be, as a counter-balance, a substantial number of our industries which now face a tariff of less than 7 per cent. and which will hardly benefit at all.

Mr. Grylls: But this is the whole point of an average. What my hon. Friend says is true, but I can only remind him that very substantial British interests are selling in Europe. For example, we are making sales of commercial vehicles despite the 22 per cent. tariff. It is surely logical to expect that if these rates are progressively reduced after the first three years by some 80 per cent. we must surely gain enormously. That is the simple point I want to make.

Mr. Deakins: Surely the hon. Gentleman's remarks in this connection, which I fully support, are being misdirected to the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten). They should be directed to the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) and the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Normanton), both of whom, for different reasons, said that tariff barriers as such were not important.

Mr. Grylls: I was simply trying to answer the point—which I think the hon. Gentleman missed—made earlier in the debate that we had very little to gain, that there might well be hurdles to get over. I have been trying, successfully I believe, to illustrate that there are substantial hurdles against our exporters at the moment but that once inside the EEC we shall benefit. Whatever our views about entry, surely a central point which must be accepted is that at least we are going to gain very substantially. After the transitional period, there will be complete freedom of movement.
A point which is not often made in these debates is that we shall also have

access to the associated territories. This in itself proves that the Community is an outward looking body—it is looking to the world and to the expansion of world trade. Of course, it would have been even better if we could have had a community of the whole world, but we must proceed step by step, and to increase the Community of Six to a community of ten, with a population of 300 million, and with over 100 million people in associated countries like Turkey, Greece and North African countries, must be of substantial advantage to us as well as being of advantage to these associated countries.
It is quite wrong, in view of the plain facts, to suggest that the EEC has been inward looking with regard to the developing world. We can all quote lists and statistics, but we should try to avoid doing so because we probably all know them. However, the overseas trade and investment by the EEC has been very substantial and we should welcome it, whatever our views of entry. I will quote only one or two figures. The EEC's trade outside the Community from the period 1958 to 1970 increased by 290 per cent.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: In average?

Mr. Grylls: There is no average in that at all. On the other hand, the volume of all world trade increased by only 189 per cent. in that same period. I believe that these figures also prove that we are about to enter a Community which is already outward looking, and we, with our Commonwealth associations, will make sure that it is even more outward looking in expanding trade throughout the developing countries.
Finally, I turn to the question of industrial raw materials, the sort of materials, which are so important to developing countries. Some 90 per cent. of our own industrial raw materials which we at present import from countries outside the Community will continue to enter duty-free. That is important to those countries. To suggest that once inside the EEC we shall put up massive barriers against these other countries whose only exports are such raw materials is far from the truth. One of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster's most successful negotiations with the EEC was to continue the entry of this 90 per cent. of


our industrial raw materials duty-free. That is a vital aspect and the House of Commons would have looked with a much more jaundiced eye if he had not succeeded in achieving that.

Mr. Deakins: Does not the hon. Gentleman appreciate that the EEC policies have all along been directed to trying to grow all the produce in Europe that can possibly be produced, including rice, which one would have thought an outward looking Community would want to continue to import from the developing world? Had it been possible to produce raw materials within the Six, they would have done so. It is because the members of the Six cannot possibly produce raw materials which do not exist in Western Europe that they continue to import them and therefore import them duty-free.

Mr. Grylls: If that is true, the developing countries will hardly suffer because I do not see much opportunity for producing bauxite, rubber and other things in Europe. There is no danger there to the developing countries. But in any case that is not the attitude of the EEC. I understand that there is a shortage of rice in many parts of the world, so to grow it in Europe is actually a contribution to world supplies. The point made by the hon. Gentleman does not help his argument. I stand firmly on the figures, which are indisputable, showing that from 1958 to 1970 the EEC's trade with the outside world rose 290 per cent. while world trade as a whole rose 189 per cent. These figures clearly prove that the Community is outward looking, and we will make it even more outward looking once we join.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Richard Body: The hon. Member for Chertsey (Mr. Grylls) began by taking my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) to task for arguing only about average tariffs which exist against us in the EEC, and he listed a number of items of the higher tariffs, going up to 22 per cent. in the case of certain heavy lorries. I want to pursue that point further because it is relevant to the Amendment.
I hope that we shall be told by the Government whether countries like Canada, Australia and the United States have given any hint of whether they will retaliate once Clause 5 is enacted and

we impose against them the common external tariff. In Canada, we have the advantage of duty-free access for our motor vehicles.
The tariff for other countries is 17 per cent. In a letter to me British Leyland assured me that it will not worry about the 17 per cent. duty imposed upon it, that its lorries and particularly its cars will still have the same access to Canada as now. It may be right, although it seems strangely naive that it should think so. It seems odd that it should shrug its shoulders over that kind of tariff yet worry about the comparatively puny one that exists just across the Channel now. Those of us who attend trade exhibitions in the Common Market know, when we go to the stands occupied by agents of British Leyland or any of our motor manufacturers, that the complaint is made about their inability to obtain supplies for the market, with the result that in many cases they are selling fewer cars across the Channel now than they were some years ago when the tariff was higher.
If we do not amend Clause 5 and find ourselves obliged to impose a common external tariff against our existing trading partners we will be inviting retaliation. There cannot be any real argument about that. We have been warned by a number of people about that, perhaps in the strongest terms by President Nixon's Commission on International Trade. This report was published last September and had woefully little attention in newspapers here. This is one of the conclusions reached by the Commission:
The next few years will determine whether the world will drift down the road of economic nationalism and regional blocs or will pursue the goal of an open world economy.
The report goes on to emphasise, with ample statistics and argument to support its contention, that our entry to the Community and the enlargement of it by the membership of other countries will do nothing to liberalise world trade but will have the contrary effect. It uses exactly the same arguments as the hon. Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Deakins) and others have used so often, that there can be no true liberalisation of trade unless we tackle the problem of agricultural protection. We have largely won the battle of tariffs and in that respect I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Normanton). The real


barriers from now on are the non-tariff barriers with industrial goods and agricultural protection for food, particularly as far as this concerns the developing countries.
This report also gave the answer to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Membr for Cheadle. It dismisses the idea of the Community being a means of liberalising trade among its own members. All of us know of the large number of non-tariff barriers that exist between member countries. We have only to talk to some of the Dutch horticulturists to hear how they try to penetrate the German or French markets and the difficulties they have. There is an endless variety of non-tariff barriers interrupting the free flow of trade within the Community.
I give one more quotation from the report because it answers the argument adduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle who argues that we shall only be able to break down these non-tariff barriers if we join the Community—[An HON. MEMBER: "Rubbish."]—yes, which is rubbish. The report says:
The Commission believe that the time has come to begin anew a major series of international negotiations to prepare the way for the elimination of all barriers to international trade and capital movements in 25 years.
Here was an invitation from the United States to other countries to play a part in liberalising world trade, in dealing not just with tariffs but with non-tariff barriers That invitation met with no response from this country. Those of us who want to liberalise trade, who believe that that should be the objective of this country, regretted enormously that we have done nothing to respond to this invitation to liberalise trade on a world-wide basis in a way which this Commission and many others around the world believe to be the most satisfactory approach.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chertsey insisted that the Community was outward-looking and expansionist and that the outside world would not be endangered by the erection of this common external tariff under Clause 5. Might I with respect remind him of those four questions put by M. Pompidou to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister just over a year ago? Those of us who have read the transcript of the broadcast made by M. Pompidou to the French people are well aware of what they are. The

fourth question made it very plain how we would have to behave towards the outside world if we were to be admitted into membership. I quote M. Pompidou from the translation prepared by the French Embassy, so I take it that it is the authentic translation. M. Pompidou said:
The fourth question which, was probably the most important of all I asked the British Prime Minister, was what he thought of Europe, in other words whether Britain was really determined to become European, whether Britain, which is an island, was determined to tie herself to the Continent and whether she was prepared consequently to loosen her ties with the open seas towards which she had always looked.

Mr. Grylls: That may well be a true report of what he said, but the facts speak louder than that quotation. The official and private aid from the Community to the underdeveloped world in 1969 was exactly 1,000 million dollars larger than the aid given by the United States to the rest of the world. That does not show in inward-looking Community.

Mr. Marten: Might I intervene before we have a reply—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. Mr. Body.

Mr. Body: I will gladly reply to that point in the next debate, which I think will be more appropriate. It will be made abundantly plain that much of what the Community has done is akin to a fraud on the developing countries. Some of the figures are shown to be absolutely bogus.
That was the question put by M. Pompidou. We know what the answer was. That gives the lie to the statement that the Community, even when enlarged, will be outward-looking. That is why I believe that President Nixon's Commission, when it said that the question for the world now is whether we are to divide into regional, economic and nationalistic blocs or whether we are to pursue an open world economy, posed the question in the right way. If this Clause is not amended in the way suggested we will be putting up barriers to trade against our existing trading partners in a way which will be inviting retaliation. We shall regret it. More important, it will constrict the growth of world trade.

Mr. Wilfred Proud foot: I think the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) put his finger on the kind of Committee which this has become when he said that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) was giving the wrong quote. In other words, this Committee has become a trading of quotes. There are no tariffs on those.
If I had my way in this world, it would be a total free trade area. I would opt for that. There are three kinds of Tories: the gunboat Tory—I am not one of them; the protectionist Tory—I am not one of those; and the low-tariff Tory, as I am, because it is absolutely impossible to be a free trade Tory in this day's world. So I would say that all the emotions about Commonwealth preference and so on must be put on one side and that we should look straight at the future of our country. If we are to succeed in our lifetime and in our children's lifetime we have got to get into the Common Market, and this is partly a matter of tariffs.
I would take the right hon. Member for Battersea, North to task. He was at the Board of Trade for a time. It is incredible that he did not learn any thing about trade while he was there. He talked as though trade stands still. It never stands still. It is changing all the time. The hon. Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Deakins) has a similar type of syndrome. He thinks things are stationary. They are not. They are moving all the time. He was talking about world agricultural production—

Mr. Deakins: World trade.

Mr. Proud foot: He was talking of world trade and food production, and in an interruption he specifically mentioned agricultural production and food. If he looks at the figures he will see that world agricultural production is rising. There has been a green revolution in India. In the next three years India, of all countries, hopes to be exporting food, and the Indians expect a white revolution in the next few years in India. So world production of food is going up, and it has not been hurt by these tariffs and what the hon. Member and others have called the Common Market's restrictive practices.
When we look at tariffs so much depends on which end of the telescope one is looking at them from. My hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) said that tariffs do not matter. He could have a point. I do not think they do matter when you are a vigorous industrial country, but if Tom Mboya—someone like that—in a country in Africa, for instance, puts up tariffs against our goods it is because he wants to achieve an industrial society. Those countries do that because they want to improve the standard of living of their own peoples, and so far nobody has proved them wrong. They put up tariff barriers when they become independent because they believe that that is the way to achieve what they want.
Of course, if we all believed that it would be possible to have a world of free traders I do not think a single Member of this Committee would want to be anything but a free trader, but we have to look at things straight and with things as they are our best opportunity is to go into Europe.
The right hon. Member for Battersea, North seems to believe that Commonwealth preference is the only way of improving our country's lot but he must know of the most favoured nation causes—and there are 190 most favoured nations with only about four which are not favoured in the whole world. We should stop hurling quotes across the Floor at one another and look at the matter as a serious proposition.
Many hon. Members have tried to prove that Europe is inward-looking. Again, they produce selective quotes. It is just as easy to quote statistics the other way, and I will have a go at exactly that.
5.45 p.m.
If we look at aid not trade we see that in 1969, the latest year for which figures are available, the total from Great Britain was 1,145 million dollars. The total going out from the whole of Europe was 5,261 million dollars. That is something like four to five times greater than our aid going to other countries. [Interruption.] In that case, I will quote Germany. Germany was providing 1,501 million dollars. That was privately. The official was 544 million dollars. The total figure was higher than ours in Britain.

Mr. Deakins: Does the hon. Gentleman know the relationship between the German gross national product and ours, and that the German gross national product has gone up 20 per cent. to 30 per cent, and that that would be reflected in the aid figure?

Mr. Proudfoot: The better we do in this country, the better products we turn out, the better we do, the better our trade, the better we can help backward countries. If the Germans have a greater gross national product than ours we should aim to get a better one as well.

Mr. Marten: I tried before to get in on this subject, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. Is he aware that in percentage terms the EEC market accounted for by imports from developing countries in the last 10 years has dropped and that Mr. Arnold, the Commonwealth Secretary-General, has given figures to show a drop of 22 per cent. to 15·9 per cent. and that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has confirmed this drop very recently, though in slightly different figures?

Mr. Proudfoot: I think my hon. Friend is juggling with the figures. I will juggle figures with him every day. I tell him one simple thing as a business man. He cannot bank a percentage. He is talking about percentages and percentage differentials, and that is the simplest political trick in the book. I will not swallow that one, but I will check what he said later.
Again, when we talk about the EEC countries being inward-looking, there is association with 30 other countries, 10 seeking trade arrangements which they will no doubt get, 12 other European countries which will no doubt get some trade agreements, 20 African countries and 13 other countries elsewhere.
The Common Market is negotiating with other countries all round the world, which would like to trade—

Mr. Deakins: Economic imperialism.

Mr. Proudfoot: Economic imperialism, the hon. Member says. No matter how we look at it, that trade will help the backward countries, and those countries are trying to get a deal with Europe.

Mr. Deakins: Does the hon. Member realise that these preferential trading agreements—incidentally, they break two of the rules of GATT, though that would not worry him—are with a very small percentage of the world population in the developing countries? These small countries, either Mediterranean or African countries, have comparatively small populations. The total population of Africa is less than the population of Japan. Has he compared that with the populations of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Malaysia, Indonesia and those other countries?

Mr. Proudfoot: Then it is far better that those smaller countries should be connected with Europe, because there is a market of 250 million people which is a better market for their products than that in this tiny island with 50 million people. These arrangements are still in the interests of those people.
The hon. Member says that I would break all the rules of GATT. I think I am the only member of the Committee who still gets all the amendments to the tariffs. In the former time when I was a Member of Parliament I put down a series of Questions about them. Does the hon. Member know that there is still a 20 per cent. tariff on airships into this country? Let him try to negotiate himself out of that one. All these negotiations, the Kennedy Round and the great movements to free trade, have not succeeded in getting rid of tariffs on airships. That is why I want to take the opportunity to go into Europe.
I am often mistaken for a Yorkshire man. I have lived there for 40 years, and I want to bring to the attention of the Committee a recently published document which deals with the effect of the Common Market on the Yorkshire and Humberside region. It was mentioned in passing in our debate on Monday. According to this document, each industry in Yorkshire was asked about its attitude towards the Common Market. Obviously, tariffs were the first things that hit the industrialists. Our tariffs are higher than the tariffs in Europe. How people can say that Europe is inward-looking when our tariffs are higher than theirs is beyond me.
Many hon. Members who have taken part in the Committee proceedings since


the beginning are suffering from self-hypnosis. They have hypnotised themselves into looking at this question narrowly. I invite them to look outward, as Europe is doing. If they do that their arguments will fall to the ground.
I want to advance an argument which I and my hon. Friends should find attractive. It is in a pamphlet called "Wages and Prices in a Mixed Economy". I quote from what Professor Meade says. It surprises me that sometimes even professors have common sense:
But far and away the most effective way of promoting competition and curbing monopolistic powers would be to admit the free import of goods from all foreign sources; and this would also make producers who had to face foreign competition more willing to resist wage claims".
What could be more apt today than that quotation? To be fair, the professor would prefer world free trade, but he believes that our next opportunity is to go into Europe.

Mr. Body: Will my hon. Friend take it from me that Professor Meade has written a pamphlet denying that contention and saying that as a free trader—andI sit humbly at his feet—he believes our entry into the European Community would restrict the growth of world trade and be a barrier to the liberalisation of trade?

Mr. Proudfoot: I make a contribution to the Institute of Economic Affairs, as I believe in competition, and that pamphlet was written for the IEA. I have read the pamphlet by Professor Meade which has been referred to by my hon. Friend, and I reckon that Professor Meade came down firmly on the fence in his attitude towards Europe. One reason why he may do so is that the IEA is a voluntary organisation receiving contributions from anyone who wants to give it money, and industrialists who give it money are interested in a free competitive economy. Anyone who has studied the Common Market and tariffs knows that many industrialists want to go into Europe.
I know that is so in my constituency. As soon as I was elected I sent round a questionnaire to the 440 factories in my constituency. About 300 industrialists responded, 80 per cent. of whom wanted to go into Europe. That is good enough for me. Europe is the place where our

country should go. I am convinced that tariff barriers must go, worldwide. Our first step is to get into Europe because there we know that the tariff barriers will go in seven years' time.

The Minister for Trade (Mr. Michael Noble): We have had an interesting debate on the Amendment finishing with a robust speech by my hon. Friend, the Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. Proudfoot). While I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Wembley, South (Sir R. Russell) for introducing the Amendment, I must tell him before I start that I cannot possibly accept it. Before trying to answer some of the wider questions which have been asked, I will bring the Committee back to the purpose of the Amendment.
It may be helpful to the Committee for me to deal briefly with the purpose of Clause 5(1). It is to create a clear legal charge to the Customs duties fixed by the Community, there being no charging provisions in the relevant Community instruments. This charge takes effect from the relevant date. The relevant date is the date on which any duty ceases, under the treaties, to be affected by any temporary provisions, that is to say, the end of the transitional period for the particular goods as enacted in the Treaty of Accession. The Amendment makes the arrival of the relevant date, and thus the power to charge Community Customs duties, conditional on the modification of those duties.
I remind my hon. and right hon. Friends that both the present Government and their predecessors made it clear from the outset that the United Kingdom accepted the Common Customs tariff as it would stand at 1st January, 1972 on completion of the Kennedy Round. This has long been known to the House of Commons and approved by it. It is, therefore, unrealistic now to seek, as the Amendment does, to frustrate the Government's ability to give proper effect both to their obligations and to the expressed will of the House of Commons.
Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Wembley, South, was being a little naïve when he said that, because the Community went through this process twelve years ago when it started, it is right to go through it all over again now more members are joining. Both this


Government and the one before assured the Community that this would not take place. We have accepted it, and to say that what happened 12 years ago should now be done again is to ignore what has happened since.
Even if the Amendment were acceptable on other grounds, it cannot be interpreted precisely, but I do not want to dwell at length on technicalities. There is no generally agreed method of calculating "average duties", and the results can differ considerably according to the method used.
The Amendment would commit the United Kingdom to a procedure which is not compatible with our international obligations and the legitimate expectations of many of our overseas suppliers. The Amendment envisages the CCT being adjusted a priori rather than in response to the diversity of actual commercial interests affected by enlargement of the Community. Moreover, perilous though such calculations can be, the arithmetic average level of the acceding countries' tariffs is somewhat above the average level of the CCT, and rescheduling the CCT in the way proposed could well increase it according to the method of calculation used.
The better course—indeed the only practicable course—is to follow the principles and procedures laid down in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, which requires no amendment to the Bill. GATT lays down that the duties and other regulations of commerce imposed at the institution of a Customs union shall not on the whole be higher or more restrictive than the general incidence of the duties and regulations previously applied. It goes on to provide that compensating adjustments should be negotiated where earlier tariff concessions are modified. This constitutes an obligation of the enlarged Community under the GATT, and the necessary procedures and discussions, in which we participate in formulating the Community's position, have now been started. I cannot at this early stage say what will be the outcome. Nor can I discuss the detail of what will be long, complex and confidential negotiations between the many Governments concerned.
It has to be borne in mind that, while various countries may have rights to compensation where duties are increased,

this will often be offset by reductions in duties. I put it to my hon. Friends that this process, which enables overseas suppliers affected by enlargement to pursue their own particular interests, is much more likely to yield satisfactory results than simply striking an arbitrary mathematical balance. It is certainly the only course which would be acceptable to them consistent with the international obligations of both the United Kingdom and the enlarged Community of which we shall be a member.
6.0 p.m.
I turn to some of the broader issues of world trade raised during the debate. I think I can assure the House that the Government attach no less importance to the expansion of world trade than they do to the general reduction of tariffs and other barriers. The fact is that we shall be fully able to pursue these objectives within the compass of our Community obligations through our participation in all decisions affecting Community duties—indeed we shall be better able to do so. The facts simply do not support the notion that the Community and the CCT may be obstacles to the expansion of world trade. In 1971 the EEC's imports from the rest of the world amounted to nearly 100,000 million dollars, almost double their level five years earlier. In the Kennedy Round the average level of the CCT was reduced by about 35 per cent. and is now about 8 per cent.—slightly below our own, which is distinctly modest by international standards. We do not lose by merging our tariff autonomy into the enlarged EEC.
In regard to trade policy and negotiations, EEC membership will confer on us added strength and added responsibilities. Our membership of the Community comes near the beginning of a decade of important activity in international trade policy. It would be nice to think that the liberal characteristics of trade policy pursued by successive British Governments were principles which today can be taken for granted. But this, alas, is not the case and one of our tasks in the Community will be essentially a negative but still vital one, namely to act in concert with our partners in the EEC to preserve the multilateral framework against which trade and trade negotiations are conducted and to use our influence to combat protectionists


forces wherever they appear in the developed world.

Mr. Shore: Before the right hon. Gentleman develops his thoughts about the multilateral trade strategy that he wishes Britain to pursue, may I ask him to make one point clear? It relates to our formal position in relation to proposals either to raise or lower the CET in the years ahead. We all understand that the Commission undertakes negotiations on behalf of Community members, but would particular tariff proposals made by the Commission have to be agreed by all the member countries?

Mr. Noble: I am not certain I can give the right hon. Gentleman a clear answer off the cuff; I was in the middle of a sentence and thinking about something else. I think he is correct to say that the Commission will be advised on the level of tariffs and we shall be discussing these matters with the Commission and giving our advice. But I cannot answer off the cuff whether the advice will be accepted with or without unanimity.

Mr. Shore: I put the point to the hon. Gentleman for a reason that I know he will appreciate; namely, that this affects the influence which we may have within an enlarged Community and the actual power which would affect any decision it might make.

Mr. Noble: Yes, but we are joining a Community—we do not need to go into this matter in great detail because it has been pursued down a large number of different courses—theessential element of which is the GATT agreement. This is what we shall try to achieve.
I return to what I was saying. Just as we expect the enlarged Community to use its negotiating strength to preserve what has already been achieved as a responsible member of the world trading community we expect that our accession to the EEC will enable us to pursue individual trading interests more effectively.
The previous Government recognised this element in their White Paper in which they said
… since the formation of the EEC, the United Kingdom's position in international trade negotiations has been weakened because a country's bargaining power depends largely on the size of its market, and ours is now

relatively small compared with the Community and the United States. We might find ourselves in the position of seeing arrangements governing international trade negotiated in the main by others—in particular the EEC and the United States. On the other hand, as a member of the enlarged Community, we should share in the bargaining strength of the biggest trading bloc in the world and have an important voice in determining how that strength was used.
I quote this passage, because it is appropriate to consider this aspect of our prospective membership at present in the light of the joint EEC-USA declaration to which we have subscribed calling for a new round of multilateral trade negotiations. In this declaration the United States and the Community undertake to initiate and actively support multilateral and comprehensive negotiations in the framework of the GATT with a view to the expansion and even greater liberalisation of world trade. If we were to remain outside the Community, who can pretend that our influence in these projected negotiations when set alongside that of the United States, the EEC and Japan could be as great as it will be when we are members.
The enlarged EEC will account for about 40 per cent. of world trade. This places tremendous responsibilities upon it and the vigour and humanity with which it exercises this power is of immense importance to the remainder of the world. We intend to do our best to see that the enlarged Community's trade policy is commensurate with these responsibilities. I believe it is asking a little too much for so many hon. Members to say that the EEC is not interested in anything except its own self-interest.

Mr. Fell: My right hon. Friend has asked the question, "Who can predict what will happen if we do not join the EEC?" Since the whole direction of Government over the last ten years has been concentrated almost solely on Britain moving into Europe, is this not a stupid prediction to try to make since there has been no thought of anything else?

Mr. Noble: I am not quite certain what my hon. Friend is expecting me to predict or not to predict, but if he is making the general point that crystal balls are as difficult to look into in Europe as well as outside, I would perhaps agree with him.
I shall attempt to answer one or two specific points which have been put to me. The right hon. Member for Battersea, North, asked whether there would be new duties in regard to Asia and the Caribbean. I suspect he knows the answer to that question as well as I do since I know that he follows these debates assiduously. The position of the Caribbean countries will depend on the form of negotiation they undertook—whether it be Yaonde or Arusha, it is for them to decide. The right hon. Gentleman also knows about the safeguards given in the White Paper in regard to the outlook for Asian countries. Therefore, he asked a question to which I am certain he knew the answer.
Secondly, he asked whether the Government had received any assurances from Canada, Australia, India and one or two others that they will not impose MFN rates of duty against us. The answer is that the Government have had no such assurances. I have spoken personally to Ministers in many of the countries mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman and I can say that they have no intention of making any assessment of what they will do until they see the final position.

Mr. Jay: Then the position is that we have had no such assurance from any of the countries that I mentioned.

Mr. Noble: That is so. None of those countries has guaranteed that it will not put up tariffs against us if it feels it right to do so in the circumstances prevailing at the time.
The right hon. Gentleman said that we are bound to have to accept more imports from the European Community than we can send it exports. That is his personal view. It is not one that is shared by me, and it certainly is not shared by industry.

Mr. Jay: In view of the fact that our labour costs will be forced up by the higher cost of living whereas the labour costs of the Six will not be, and as tariffs come down to zero, does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is inevitable that that will happen?

Mr. Noble: There are many assumptions, the inevitability of which I do not accept. I found it a little odd to be

thought to be allied with a protectionist EEC against a free trading USA. I shall not go further into the point than that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) spoke very sensibly, though he was very quickly picked up on a fairly narrow point about the future of trading. My hon. Friend is basically right. Over the next period of years, tariffs can be important, and certainly high levels of tariffs can be very important for certain countries. But, by and large, the world is moving into a state where, for good or bad, the highly sophisticated manufacturing countries will be developing most of their exports in those types of goods, because the developing countries, rightly in many cases, are putting up very high protective duties against the ordinary commodities which Britain used to export in large quantities. The picture is changing, and I believe that we should take note of it.
The hon. Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Deakins) was trying from time to time to paint a broad canvas, coming back always to what he really meant, which was agriculture and not world trade. I did not agree with many of his comments, though they may have been true in the narrow sense of agricultural production. I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman will wish to make these points more forcibly when we discuss the next Clause.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Normanton) was greeted with a certain amount of laughter, some of it ill-conceived, when he said that it would be much easier to get rid of non-tariff barriers if we were in the EEC. That is certainly true. My hon. Friend may have over-stated it slightly by saying that the only way that we could get rid of them was from inside the EEC. But there is no doubt that if a country is negotiating with other countries for the removal of non-tariff barriers, the stronger its bargaining power the better.
I agree entirely with many hon. Members on both sides of the Committee who have said that non-tariff barriers in a large number of cases are even more important to world trade than tariffs. That is why the GATT is looking at them with great care at the moment. It is also why they were made a main feature of the


consideration of the next world liberalisation talks beginning in 1973. They are extremely important. To that extent, we shall find it easier to negotiate for the removal of these non-tariff barriers from inside the EEC than outside it.
I think that I have covered the main questions that I was asked. I conclude my remarks by recommending the Committee not to accept this Amendment.

[SIR MYER GALPERNin the Chair]

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Shore: We are all pleased to have with us the Minister for Trade. We fully understand that the matters covered in our discussions on this Bill go well beyond the range of knowledge which it is reasonable to demand of the Chancellor of the Duchy and his devoted colleague—able, industrious and knowledgeable as they are. We are glad to have this infusion of expertise on a matter of very great importance, because what we are discussing is the customs union itself.
I am one of many who think that the European Community above all is a common agricultural policy which should be abolished and a common external tariff which should be demolished. Those are my two basic descriptions of the European Community. But whether my view of the Community is shared by others, and whether others believe that there are additional factors, no one will deny that the outward and visible sign of whatever it is that lies within the European Community so far has been the achievement of a customs union and a common external tariff around it, and it is our adjustment to the common external tariff and the impact of it on the rest of the world—above all, the developed world—that we should look at with great care.
With his inevitably somewhat narrow Amendment, the hon. Member for Wembley, South (Sir R. Russell) opened up the major debate that has ensued, and I make two comments about it.
If we were to adopt the proposals in the hon. Gentleman's Amendment in preference to the proposal negotiated and agreed in the Treaty of Accession that over a five-year period we should simply adopt the existing common external tariff of the EEC, the effects would be difficult

to predict. It is true that overall there is a slightly higher tariff in this country at the moment than there is in the EEC. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Deakins) pointed out that if we brought in food we should get a very different picture about the overall protectionism of the Community compared with the position in this country. There, the protectionism is extraordinary, and it is reflected not only in those commodities which come under the common agricultural policy and not the common external tariff, but in those food supplies which are subject to tariff under the common external tariff. In addition to that, the incidence of tariffs is very different as between different commodities and products in the Six as compared with the position here. For that reason alone the differences involved in adopting the method proposed by the hon. Member for Wembley, South would be quite important.
However, as I understood it the hon. Gentleman raised a more important point. He was trying to say that what was involved in the method that he proposed was far more consistent with the spirit of the GATT than the method adopted by the Government. The underlying philosophy of the GATT, after all, is that a signatory should accord to all nations the same kind of treatment in its trade relations; in other words, it should not go in for preferential arrangements. The effect of averaging out the common external tariff with the tariffs of the applicant countries would be to reduce the amount of discrimination which otherwise would be involved against those countries in terms of the new tariffs barriers that we should have to adopt.
I put aside the technical aspects, as other hon. Members have, because they are not really at the heart of the debate. The real concern is how we see the future and the trading relations between the developed countries of the world; whether we see the purposes of expansion of world trade served or not served by Britain joining with others in forming an enlarged customs union in the Continent of Europe.
The real problem which so many of us worry about with good cause, is that there is a danger of the world lapsing into regional blocks and regional trade protectionism. That is a serious concern which it is right we should have.
Do not let us forget that under the régime of GATT we have enjoyed since the war not only in this country, not only in Western Europe but throughout the developed world, and to some extent, although not adequately, in the developing world, the incredible boon of the advance of production and trade, and, in a large part of the developed world, continuing full employment or a high level of employment.
That has been the greatest single achievement of our generation in politics. It did not happen naturally. It was not the experience of people who were in Government positions or Members of Parliament before the last war or the First World War. Their experience was utterly different. They had experience of a world economy which was basically a protectionist economy, which did not expand sufficiently and which denied to so many countries and peoples the opportunities of work, prosperity and trade growth.
Let us not forget the immense benefits which we have all derived, whether we are outside or inside the Common Market, in the Continent of Europe or in other Continents, from the liberalising influence of GATT, and also the lubricating work on reserves and currency which the IMF has provided. The growth of the use of the dollar as a reserve currency has also played an immensely important rôle in these developments.
The formation of the EEC in 1958 and EFTA in the following year was bound to have some adverse effect on the broader world trade system because they inevitably discriminated, contrary to GATT, in trading matters in favour of their own member States.
Until recently the effects of this development were relatively slight. The achievement of free trade in EFTA and of the customs union in the EEC was gradual, and these moves were accompanied by continuing tariff reductions affecting the whole of the trading world. The Kennedy Round, which came fully into effect only last year, nearly halved the tariff barriers between the customs union and free trade areas in Europe, and the trading countries of North America, Australasia and elsewhere. The two processes were going on at the same time.
However, as we all know, serious problems have been developing, particularly during the last year. The United States' payments deficit has proved chronic, and excessive and unwanted dollar balances have built up in Europe and elsewhere. The United States, in its efforts to combat unemployment at home and to balance its transactions with the rest of the world, was forced last summer to take drastic measures to achieve a change in parities of leading currencies, and devalued the dollar, thus making American goods cheaper and more competitive.
We know what happened after that. Welcome as the Smithsonian agreement in December was, everyone knows that important matters affecting trade, investment, overseas defence expenditure, and the accumulation of dollar balances are in urgent need of settlement. Apart from Japan, whose policies I shall not touch upon today, the two principal groups of countries which should be involved in settling these serious international problems are EFTA and the EEC.
However, if entry by this country is achieved, EFTA will be substantially destroyed and the enlarged European Community, as the right hon. Gentleman the Minister for Trade and other hon. Members observed, will be the dominant trading group in the world. Therefore, the policies of the enlarged Community towards the other trading nations will be decisive in solving, or not solving, the economic problems of the world.
As I have said, the fear that many of us have is that the European Community is already pursuing dangerously unhelpful policies in world trade, and that the enlarged Community is, I regret to say, likely to make things worse. Hardly a day elapses, for those who really study the financial Press, without some new warning from the United States, OECD or GATT about the effects of existing Common Market policies in promoting protectionism not merely in its own trading area, but promoting and encouraging protectionism in the United States as well.
There are objective reasons why these fears should be respected and examined. The first is the obvious reason, which hon. Members have spoken about already, that the European Community in its quest for,


and achievement of, substantial self-sufficiency in agriculture, dealt a serious blow to world trade in agricultural products. There should be no doubt about that. Not only does this affect the United States, but also the great food growing countries of the Commonwealth, New Zealand, Australia and Canada. They are bound to be more grievously affected in the years ahead when Britain, the one great market for their food, is denied them, as we act out our rôle as a second stomach for France and eat up the surpluses of their agriculture.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Peter Mills): The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Peter Mills)indicated dissent.

Mr. Shore: I do not know why the Parliamentary Secretary shakes his head. That is precisely what will happen. That is one of the reasons why the possibilities of getting rid of the more burdensome features of the CAP are remote, because the great surpluses which it has a natural tendency to generate and produce will at last find a stomach to absorb them. That is the consequence when Britain joins. The effect of this on Commonwealth countries is serious.
There is another factor. The Six has not been content, as we know, to establish a customs union among themselves. They have sought to bring within a new preferential trade system not only the African associated countries, about which perhaps we will have an opportunity to debate later, but all the countries that border the Mediterranean. If Britain and the other applicant EFTA countries join as well, there will be a vast trading bloc, a preferential trade system, covering not only Western Europe, but virtually the whole of Africa and the Mediterranean countries.
That poses a serious problem for those countries which lie outside, which face the reality of trade discrimination against their goods. That discrimination is not yet, if my judgment is correct, too severe, but it is nevertheless noticeable. The threat of this discrimination may increase in the years ahead.
The Minister was unable to answer an important question of mine to which I know he will want to find the answer. It is important because it is not good

enough to say that it is sufficient to express one's viewpoint at the Council of Ministers and hope that all will be well.
If proposals come forward which have the effect of raising tariffs—protectionism in Western Europe—I should certainly like to be in a position to say yea or nay to any such proposal. It would not be good enough for it to be settled by a majority decision in which we were simply swept along.
More important than the serious problems that the formation of an enlarged Community will undoubtedly present is the underlying attitude and spirit which appears to motivate at least some of its members concerning the outside world.
I am fully aware that there are different attitudes, forces and viewpoints within the Communities—Ido not suggest that all of them take the restrictionist point of view—but nobody who has looked at these matters seriously can doubt that from the start of the present régime in France the EEC has been used as far as possible by the French Government as a means of countering and checking American and British interests and of unpicking, as far as they could, the settlements and arrangements that have been dominant in the post-war world. There is no evidence that the policies pursued by General de Gaulle himself have been pursued with any less energy by his successor President Pompidou.
This is an important matter which relates directly to what the Minister for Trade said about the EEC and the United States declaration concerning future negotiations for trade in the framework of GATT in the year ahead. One of the most important negotiations in the post-war period is on the agenda for 1973 when the new American Administration comes in.
What is the attitude of the Community to these negotiations? I will put certain points to the Committee on which I should like the Government to give me some assurances.
First, the pressure for an economic and monetary union in Europe, for which a quite extraordinary degree of diplomacy has been mobilised, particularly by France, is not aimed at any objective


benefit and achievement within Western Europe; it is almost wholly external, because it is aimed against the United States. It is aimed against the dollar and at reducing the general influence which the United States may have. That is its purpose. Let no one be in any doubt about it. The Minister may disagree. If so, he must tell us his view. However, no one who has examined the matter will dispute that this is the major impulse behind the efforts by France to establish an economic and monetary union.
Secondly, there is a new thrust behind the development of these Mediterranean trading and other agreements. This has not been finished by any means. It was only in 1968 that a number of the Mediterranean trade agreements began. We know that if the EEC goes on spreading trade agreements country by country all over the Mediterranean—it is also reaching out into Latin America—then not only the United States, but the countries of the Commonwealth and other developed countries will be shut out from or placed at a disadvantage is not only the expanding European Economic Community, but the associated preferential trade system that is being built up.
Thirdly—I put this point seriously—I think we all remember the Prime Minister's winding up speech on 28th October when he finally commended to the House the proposition of entering the European Economic Communities. Virtually the whole of his argument consisted of his fear—the other way round from what I am expressing—that there would be a collapse of the world trading system into regional blocs and of his determination to get inside on in what I think was the mistaken belief that we would be safeguarded and protected there.
I do not believe that the solution to the problem of expanding world trade lies within any preference system. The solution has to be global. If there were a failure of the world economic trading and monetary system, we could no more protect ourselves against the forces of depression and unemployment which

would spread than the United States in the 1930s could make itself safe within its large and enclosed market, as it largely was, from the general recession which then affected the world's economy. So the Prime Minister's attitude and approach is wholly wrong. It is also extremely worrying that that should be one of his main thoughts and should be used as one of the main justifications for recommending entry.
I have already mentioned, and the Minister for Trade has confirmed, the importance of this world trade negotiation that must take place in 1973. I should much prefer it to take place with Britain outside the Common Market. It would take place just as well if we were outside. The EFTA, the EEC, the United States and the other countries could negotiate just as well whether we were to participate as part of the Common Market team or not. Nevertheless, the important matter for the moment is the negotiation. I do not know whether the Minister has any information. However, he must have seen the report in The Times of 30th May, 1972, referring to the failure of the countries concerned even to agree an agenda. This is very important indeed. The failure to get together and agree even an agenda and a way of approaching the double problem of trade under GATT and monetary reform under the IMF failed, according to The Times editorial, because
the western European countries, led by an implacable France and assisted by a vacillating Britain, were determined that nothing which the Americans wanted should be accepted.
I am not saying this. I am quoting a newspaper reasonably favourable to the Common Market point of view—in its editorial about the state of these very negotiations which offer the possibility either of disaster in world trade in future or the much brighter prospect of getting rid of the remaining barriers to world trade that still exist.
I recommend my right hon. and hon. Friends to support the Amendment, not only for what it says but for the wider connotations which go with it.

Question put, That the Amendment be made: —

The Committee divided: Ayes 196, Noes 209.

Division No. 235.]
AYES
[6.38 p.m.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
O'Halloran, Michael


Allen, Scholefield
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
O'Malley, Brian


Ashley, Jack
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Orbach, Maurice


Atkinson, Norman
Heffer, Eric S.
Orme, Stanley


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Horam, John
Oswald, Thomas


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Paisley, Rev. Ian


Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Bidwell, Sydney
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Biffen, John
Jeger, Mrs. Lena
Pendry, Tom


Bishop, E. S.
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Pentland, Norman


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
John, Brynmor
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.


Body, Richard
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Prescott, John


Booth, Albert
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Price, William (Rugby)


Brown, Hugh D. (G' gow, Provan)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Probert, Arthur


Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Jones, Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn (W.Ham,S.)
Rankin, John


Buchan, Norman
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Judd, Frank
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Kaufman, Gerald
Roberts, Rt.Hn.Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Kinnock, Neil
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Lambie, David
Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n &amp; R'dnor)


Cohen, Stanley
Lamborn, Harry
Roper, John


Coleman, Donald
Lamond, James
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Concannon, J. D.
Latham, Arthur
Rowlands, Edward


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Leadbitter, Ted
Russell, Sir Ronald


Dalyell, Tam
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Sandelson, Neville


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Leonard, Dick
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Lestor, Miss Joan
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Short, Rt.Hn.Edward (N'C'tle-u-Tyne)


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Deakins, Eric
Lipton, Marcus
Silverman, Julius


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Lomas, Kenneth
Skinner, Dennis


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Loughlin, Charles
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Dempsey, James
Lyon, Alexander (Bradford, E.)
Spearing, Nigel


Doig, Peter
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Spriggs, Leslie


Dormand, J. D.
McBride, Neil
Stallard, A. W.


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
McElhone, Frank
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Mackenzie, Gregor
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Dunn, James A.
Mackie, John
Strang, Gavin


Dunnett, Jack
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Eadie, Alex
McNamara, J. Kevin
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Edelman, Maurice
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Tinn, James


Ellis, Tom
Marks, Kenneth
Tomney, Frank


English, Michael
Marquand, David
Torney, Tom


Evans, Fred
Marshall, Dr. Edmund
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin


Ewing, Henry
Marten, Neil
Urwin, T. W.


Faulds, Andrew
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Varley, Eric G.


Fell, Anthony
Mayhew, Christopher
Wainwright, Edwin


Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham, Ladywood)
Meacher, Michael
Walden, Brian (B'ham, All Saints)


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Mendelson, John
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Millan, Bruce
Weitzman, David


Foot, Michael
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Wellbeloved, James


Freeson, Reginald
Milne, Edward
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Gilbert, Dr. John
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hapmton, Itchen)
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)
Moate, Roger
Whitehead, Phillip


Golding, John
Molyneaux, James
Whitlock, William


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardignashire)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Woof, Robert


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)



Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hamling, William
Murray, Ronald King
Mr. Ernest Armstrong and


Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Oakes, Gordon
Mr. Joseph Harper.


Hardy, Peter
Ogden, Eric





NOES


Adley, Robert
Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord
Boscawen, Robert


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Bossom, Sir Clive


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Benyon, W.
Bowden, Andrew


Astor, John
Berry, Hn. Anthony
Bray, Ronald


Atkins, Humphrey
Biggs-Davison, John
Brinton, Sir Tatton


Awdry, Daniel
Blaker, Peter
Bruce-Gardyne, J.




Bryan, Sir Paul
Hiley, Joseph
Peel, John


Burden, F. A.
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Pounder, Rafton


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Holland, Philip
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Campbell, Rt.Hn.G. (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Holt, Miss Mary
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.


Carlisle, Mark
Hordern, Peter
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Hornsby-Smith, Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Channon, Paul
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Chapman, Sydney
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Raison, Timothy


Chalaway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Iremonger, T. L.
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Churchill, W. S.
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Redmond, Robert


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Jessel, Toby
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Clegg, Walter
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Rees, Peter (Dover)


Cockeram, Eric
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Coombs, Derek
Jopling, Michael
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Cooper, A. E.
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Cormack, Patrick
Kershaw, Anthony
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Costain, A. P.
Kimball, Marcus
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)


Crowder, F. P.
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. James
Kinsey, J. R.
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Dean, Paul
Kirk, Peter
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Rost, Peter


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Knox, David
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Lambton, Lord
Sharples, Richard


Dykes, Hugh
Lamont, Norman
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Eden, Sir John
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Le Merchant, Spencer
Simeons, Charles


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Sinclair, Sir George


Emery, Peter
Longden, Sir Gilbert
Skeet, T. H. H.


Eyre, Reginald
Luce, R. N.
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
MacArthur, Ian
Soref, Harold


Fidler, Michael
McGrindle, R. A.
Speed, Keith


Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
McLaren, Martin
Spence, John


Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Stanbrook, Ivor


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Madel, David
Steel, David


Fookes, Miss Janet
Mather, Carol
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)


Fortescue, Tim
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)


Foster, Sir John
Mawby, Ray
Stokes, John


Fowler, Norman
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Fox, Marcus
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Temple, John M.


Fry, Peter
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Gardner, Edward
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Glyn, Dr. Alan
Miscampbell, Norman
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Goodhew, Victor
Mitchell, Lt.-Col.C. (Aberdeenshire,W)
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Gorst, John
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Tilney, John


Gower, Raymond
Money, Ernle
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Green, Alan
Monks, Mrs. Connie
Tugendhat, Christopher


Grieve, Percy
Monro, Hector
Waddington, David


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Montgomery, Fergus
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
More, Jasper
Wall, Patrick


Grylls, Michael
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Ward, Dame Irene


Gummer, J. Selwyn
Morrison, Charles
Warren, Kenneth


Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Mudd, David
Weatherill, Bernard


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Murton, Oscar
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Wilkinson, John


Hannam, John (Exeter)
Normanton, Tom
Winterton, Nicholas


Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Nott, John
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Onslow, Cranley
Worsley, Marcus


Haselhurst, Alan
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Hastings, Stephen
Osborn, John
Younger, Hn. George


Havers, Michael
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)



Hayhoe, Barney
Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hicks, Robert
Pardoe, John
Mr. Paul Hawkins and


Higgins, Terence L.
Parkinson, Cecil
Mr. Hamish Gray.

Question accordingly negatived.

Mrs. Judith Hart: I beg to move Amendment No. 447, in page 7, line 19, leave out from beginning to end of line 21 and insert:
'Sections 1 and 2 of the Import Duties Act 1958 shall remain in force and the said Act shall have effect with the addition of the following powers insofar as they are consistent with the provisions of the Import Duties (Developing Countries) Order 1971'.

We come now to an area which has not been explored during our discussions, although we touched on it in the debate on the last Amendment. It is the general effect of British entry on the third world in general and on Commonwealth countries in the third world in particular. We have had a number of glib and facile generalisations without very much fact. Related to the Amendment and to the Clause is the whole background of provision in the Treaty and in the Bill, and


I should like to put the Clause in its context, partly so that I may have some confirmation from the Minister that the somewhat elaborate network of provision in the Treaty and in the Bill is correctly understood.
Article 4 of the Treaty obliges us, in general terms, to acceed to all international agreements concluded by the Community and to
take appropriate measures to adjust
our own position to the rights and obligations arising from membership.
Protocol 23, which arises out of Article 4, allows us to defer until 1st January, 1974, the application of the Community's generalised preference scheme. Between now and then our own generalised preference scheme will continue, and presumably between now and then also there will be negotiations on the harmonisation of our generalised preference scheme with that of the Community.
Related to this is Protocol 22 which offers association to the independent Commonwealth countries in Africa and the Caribbean, but not to those in Asia. As to the Asian Commonwealth countries, there is the Community's joint declaration of intent which promises, in vague and unspecific phraseology, to examine the problems of the Asian Commonwealth countries
with a view to seeking appropriate solutions".
Then there is Article 24 which adds the British dependent territories and the Associated States in the Caribbean to the countries associated with the Community, and I wonder whether, in this connection, the Minister would be kind enough to tell the Committee—because we have not so far heard anything from the Government about this—under what circumstances, and within the context of which negotiations, we are agreeing that the Associated States in the Caribbean are to be treated like dependent territories. I ask that because, as a result of legislation which we passed in this House a few years ago, the Associated States in the Caribbean have entire responsibility for their own domestic affairs—which means, presumably, their own economic affairs—and the British Government remain responsible for their foreign and defence policy. The internal economies of the Associated States in the Caribbean will

be profoundly affected, since they are being offered association with the Community, and we have had no indication of the extent to which they have been consulted, or the negotiations which they have had, and we should like to know the answer on these matters.
Then there is a whole series of Articles—Article 108 to 115—which relate to the generalised preference scheme. Except for the products covered until January, 1974, by our own generalised preference scheme, we must apply the EEC arrangements and rules to all imports from developing countries. After January, 1974,we must apply the Community's generalised preference scheme, or what ever modification of that has been agreed in the process of harmonisation between now and then, to those products now covered by our scheme. For other pro ducts we need not apply the Yaounde or Arusha arrangements until 31st January, 1975, by which time there will have been a renegotiation of those arrangements. Until then the EEC will apply its own rules to what the Treaty calls the Annex VI countries, those countries being offered association, and an Annex VI country which decides between now and 31st January, 1975, not to become associated will have normal third country rules applied to it by us as well as by the EEC.
The Clause and the subsection to which the Amendment relates enable the British Government to abandon the British generalised preference scheme which was made under the Import Duties Act 1958, together with the Finance Art 1971, the relevant sections of which are to be repealed by Schedule 3. The Amendment seeks to give the Government the opportunity to preserve the British generalised preference scheme in order to prevent entry into the Community from damaging the development prospects of the third world as a whole and of Asian countries in particular, and it is this to which I propose to devote some of my remarks.
A great deal of dutiful lip-service has been paid by the Government and by other people to the needs of the developing world. There is almost a statutory paragraph in any speech in favour of the Common Market paying lip-service to the third world. Indeed, the White Paper of a year ago—and this is, as it were, the philosophy which enables the


Government to pay lip-service to the third world while proclaiming the virtues of entry to the Community—said:
To provide new markets and aid for the less prosperous countries on a scale anything like adequate to their needs, Europe must be united, strong and wealthy.
That is the philosophy. That is a familiar Conservative argument, the one that runs, "Make me a millionaire and I shall have more to give to the poor,". The White Paper went on to say:
We in the United Kingdom think particularly of the countries of the Commonwealth.
Which Commonwealth? Do the Government mean the sugar-producing countries? I shall not discuss them today. They are a separate subject for discussion. Is it that part of the Commonwealth with which the White Paper was concerned? Is it the great mass of the world's poor with which it was concerned? It is time, and the Amendment affords the opportunity, to examine the evidence and to look at the whole ethos and structure of the Community as it affects the third world.
It is true that some of the details of the rules of the EEC may be capable of negotiation. They may be capable of change from within. Indeed, this is a familiar argument from those who recognise that damage is likely to be done to the third world by entry. To protect themselves against the accusation that that will happen they say that if Britain is in the Community she can seek to change some of these matters. But the fundamentals of the Community's arrangements are not likely to be susceptible to change, negotiation or persuasion. These arrangements are concerned with trade, with aid and with people.
Let us look first at the figures of the people concerned here. One figure was quoted earlier. Affected by the Bill, either because they are included in some way by association, or because they are excluded from benefits which hitherto they have enjoyed, axe the following groups of people: the Francophone countries of Africa, amounting to 73 million people; the Commonwealth countries in Africa, amounting to 116 million people; the Commonwealth countries in the Caribbean, amounting to about 3 million people; and the Commonwealth countries in Asia, which account for up to

670 million people. Included in the various arrangements—or potentially included—are fewer than 200 million people. Excluded altogether are 670 million people, and they are the poorest of the world's population.
7.0 p.m.
This means that two out of three people in the third world—if one takes other figures into account—will be disadvantaged because they will derive, as I shall hope to show, loss and not benefit from the Clause. The loss occurs because their countries will be able to sell less of many of their products to Britain, and are already either precluded from or limited in what they may sell to Europe. The loss occurs also because some part of British aid must now be devoted to the European Fund Development which distributes its aid programme, as I shall try to show, with a greater emphasis towards Africa, particularly Francophone Africa, than towards Asia.
Coming to trade, we maintain—I hope to prove this—that they will be able to sell less because the EEC generalised preference scheme is meaner than the British scheme. For one thing, it applies not only tariffs but quotas, despite the fact that the United Nations' development strategy, the Pearson Report and every authoritative body of opinion on the question of assisting the trade of the developing world, has counselled against quotas.
The EEC scheme is based on quotas as well as tariffs. It is also meaner because it is more limited, especially in relation to semi-processed agricultural products, which are some of the most important things that the developing countries are trying to sell. Some claims were made in the White Paper of a year ago about the fact that the Community had been the first to introduce ageneralised preference scheme. But it introduced it just a year ago, last July, whereas our scheme was introduced in January. But, interestingly enough—I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me quoting again from what he said in Committee on the Finance Bill—the House will want to know that this was a month or so before the Government's White Paper proclaimed the virtues of the earliness, the rapidity, with which the Community had introduced its


generalised preference scheme. In that Committee, the right hon. Gentleman was saying that he preferred our preference scheme. He said:
It is more liberal and more useful and, in view of the safeguards we have, it is much more valuable to the countries concerned."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee H, 24th May, 1971; c. 34.]
So we have it from the right hon. Gentleman. I am certain that the experience of the first year of the Community's Scheme will not have persuaded him to change his mind. If we look at that experience, we have to be clear that what happens to the ability to sell goods to Europe is the essential deterrent of a developing country's ability to acquire resources and foreign exchange for its further development. This is entirely the essence of its foundation for future development.
In principle, all imports from third countries are subject to the common external tariff and the common agricultural policy. What occurs is that at present the EEC has special arrangements for the Associates, such as freedom from Customs duties. For the French overseas departments and dependencies, in some cases products are regarded as though they were produced inside the EEC; for the Department d'Outre Mer wholly so, and the Territoires d'Outre Mer are not exempt from CAP levies. In some cases the EEC arrangements involve reverse preferences, which have been strongly condemned in most quarters, most recently by the Secretary-General of the Commonwealth Secretariat, Arnold Smith.
One of the factors involving primary products is that the EEC is more self-sufficient than we are in a number of products, including wheat, feed grains, sugar, oils and fats, and fresh fruit, including bananas. Most of these come from Commonwealth sources, mostly potential Associates. But what will happen under Yaoundé to those countries which become Associates, or under Arusha? We do not know the answer.
It is blithely said, "Those countries in Africa and the Caribbean are all right because they are being offered associate membership." But we do not know what will happen under the renegotiations of Yaoundé and under the negotiations to admit them to Yaoundé or Arusha. What

is often overlooked is the nature of the Yaoundé Convention itself. I quote Article 60:
Any request for association with the Community made by a State whose economic structure and production are comparable with those of the Associated States, and which, after examination by the Community, has been referred by the latter to the Association Council, shall be the subject of consultations within the Association Council.
The position about what happens on the arrangements for association is not a decision that is made solely by the Six. It is a decision in which the existing French Associates also take part. What is quite clear, again from Article 60, is that such accession, that is to say, the accession of a new Associate,
shall not adversely affect the advantages accruing to the Associated States signatories to this Convention from the provisions relating to financial and technical co-operation.
It has been made very clear—it was made clear by President Pompidou about a year ago—that the present Associates must be protected from competition from new Associates. There are loopholes. There is some uncertainty even about the position of the Commonwealth countries in Africa and the Caribbean.
As for countries which are not offered association in respect of primary products, the outstanding ones are India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Malaysia. I believe it to be true—perhaps the Minister will confirm this—that in the first six months of the Community generalised preference scheme, India used up her quotas, so that for the remaining half-year there were no quotas left under the preference scheme for products to come into Europe from India. This means that some of the problems—jute, coir, and vegetable oils—are profound. In the case of Sri Lanka, it means that not only do quotas get used up quickly but there are particularly important products which are not even covered by the EEC Scheme. For example, coconuts from Sri Lanka are not included, yet in 1969 coconuts represented 16 per cent, of Sri Lanka's exports. They are shut out totally from the generalised preference scheme of the Community—not shut out from ours, but to be shut out from ours as we harmonise with that of the EEC.
Turning to processed agricultural products, our scheme is based on zero tariffs. The EEC Scheme, in addition


to quotas, is based on relatively small cuts in the full tariff rate. It leaves a substantial degree of protection, up to 34 per cent., for processing industries within the EEC and within countries that are Associates of the Community, which is a lot of protection. When people say," But the generalised preference scheme of the Community admits processed agricultural products", they do not point out that there is still this high degree of protection compared with that of our scheme. Again, it is Asia which suffers.
The Government's argument, for which hon. Members opposite indicated support a short while ago when I quoted from the White Paper, is that if we in Britain become wealthier and more prosperous, this will help the Third World. But on primary products and semi-processed agricultural products, the market is very inelastic. When one becomes a richer country, one does not necessarily eat more coconut products. When one is a richer country, one probably reduces one's consumption of oils and fats.

Mr. Grylls: Is it not also true that one imports more raw materials from developing countries, and that this is exactly what will happen?

Mrs. Hart: Not always, no. Many primary products are foodstuffs and agricultural products which are eaten or not eaten, as the case may be. The consumption of these does not increase as the standard of living increases. It is well established that one of the reasons why the prices of primary products from the developing countries have not risen over the last 10 or 15 years—many of them have fallen—is precisely that these are products for which demand is inelastic. Therefore, the Government's assumption, which we do not accept, that our entering Europe would mean greater prosperity, does not have any bearing on this aspect of third world trade. Eighty per cent. of the trade of non-associate countries—this is the answer to the question asked by the hon. Member for Chertsey (Mr. Grylls)—is in these items.
Manufactures are becoming increasingly important from the developing country point of view, because a Third World country which is just beginning to get off the ground, hopes to be able for the first time to sell some of its manu-

factures to the rich world. To the extent that developing countries are limited, hindered, shut out from being able to do so, it is a tremendous block to their hopes of further rapid development.
It is not just the volume of imports which matters. It is their unit value. It is the potential for growth of imports. This is a field where demand is elastic. It is a field which matters more because this is so.
I will give one set of figures from the OECD Statistics of Foreign Trade for 1969. Taking manufactured goods, which includes textiles, and manufactured articles of all kind, machinery and transport equipment—these figures are expressed, as are most of the OECD ones, in millions of dollars—in 1969 we imported from the Commonwealth developing countries goods to the value of 888·7 million dollars. The Community imported from Commonwealth developing countries 792·8 million dollars worth. The EEC imported from the Yaoundé developing countries 565·1 million dollars worth. We imported from the Yaoundé developing countries 55·6 million dollars worth.
How will this square as we harmonise our generalised preference scheme and as we have to give special preference to the Yaoundé associates? It is clear that, particularly as most of our imports of manufactures came from Asia rather than from Africa and were more than the whole of the imports of the EEC from the Commonwealth, now that we must put up the CET barriers there will be very serious consequences indeed for the export of manufactures from the Asian countries of the Commonwealth to us. Therefore, they will suffer.

Mr. Normanton: Has the right hon. Lady taken into account the question of the decision to impose, or reintroduce, what might be termed barriers in the path of trade with our established contacts in the Far East as from 1st January? I refer to the fact that textiles from Asiatic sources are now open to a tariff which, incidentally, is higher than at the preferential rate that applies in the EEC. Has the right hon. Lady noted also the way in which the volume of flow of textiles from all sources is increasing inexorably into the existing EEC?

Mrs. Hart: When the hon. Gentleman studies the figures I have given he will see part of the answer to his question. He is wrong in saying that there is an increasing flow of textiles from the developing countries into the Community. This is not so. The quota system prevents it. India has already used up its quota on all its goods halfway through the year.
There has not been much intensive research work so far in this field. It is all new. The hon. Gentleman should study the figure I am about to give him, because this results, not from generalised wishful thinking, but from hard intensive work in depth.
7.15 p.m.
There has been a very interesting study conducted at the University of Yale by Richard Cooper of the Economic Growth Centre there. I will not bore the Committee with all the details, but Mr. Cooper works out in some detail what would have been the effect on Commonwealth developing countries if their exports during 1970—the latest date which could be taken—had been subject to the Community generalised preference quota scheme which the Clause will enable Britain to adopt. Mr. Cooper says that 83 per cent, of their exports to Britain would have hit the tariff-quota ceiling. That is extraordinary.
Mr. Cooper says this:
At the crucial margin, Commonwealth products would be subject to duties that exceed those now prevailing in Britain, and for those products adoption of the Community scheme by Britain would actually discourage exportation and investment, the direct opposite of what is ostensibly intended.
The stimulus to development will be negligible. … The scheme"—
this is the EEC scheme—
is most generous for those products in which the developing countries are least competitive, and the most generous quotas of all are for those products, such as jet aircraft and advanced computers, which the developing countries have little hope of exporting for many years, duties or not.
Do the Government claim that India, Pakistan, Ceylon and Malaysia, are looking outward to Britain's seeking to assist them when it replaces a more generous generalised preference scheme by one which is generous to India and Pakistan in relation to jet aircraft and advanced computers?
I come to my last essential point. It may be argued that, despite all this, aid can compensate. Therefore, we must to some extent look at the two things together. Of course the Community's record on aid is a good one. So goes the argument. So, finally, let us look at the relationship between trade and aid as regards the Commonwealth countries, especially the Asian Commonwealth countries.
The record of bilateral aid—that is, not the aid of the European Development Fund—of France, Germany, Netherlands and Belgium is good. It is better than ours. Bilateral aid is independent of whatever happens in the European Economic Community. Our aid record will continue to be what we make it. What the EEC does is to bring in a new dimension to multilateral aid because, in addition to contributions to IDA, the World Bank and the United Nations, we shall now have to pay a compulsory contribution to the European Development Fund. What we do not quite know yet—perhaps the Minister will be able to take the opportunity to tell us a little more tonight—is just what the British contribution is likely to be. We have had an indication but not a very clear statement.
The amount of our contribution to the European Development Fund will lessen the amounts that we can freely spend where we want to. This would be so even in an enlarging British aid budget. To the extent that part of it is constrained for particular purposes on which we are not making the decisions, the freedom that we have to choose where we help and what we do will be limited.
It is argued that inside the Community we can press for more help to be given to Commonwealth countries, particularly those in Asia, perhaps to balance their losses on trade. Of course this is true. I do not think that the Committee has appreciated just how effective and extensive that pressure would have to be if there were to be a change in the habits of the European Development Fund sufficient to give any degree of extra help to India and Pakistan.
In the period between 1968 and 1970, according to figures from the Development Assistance Committee of OECD, aid from the European Development


Fund reached a total of 184 million dollars. It was distributed as follows: the French Franc area countries received 108·4 million dollars, most of which went to the countries south of the Sahara, and 7 million dollars of which went to the French overseas territories and departments; 5·5 million dollars went to India and Pakistan; 0·6 million dollars went to other Commonwealth countries and the remainder—about 68 million dollars—went to other developing countries. Hon. Members should note that India and Pakistan, countries which will suffer so desperately from the trading arrangements we are about to undertake, and which have populations totalling 650 million of the poorest people receive 5·5 million dollars. The conclusion we must reach is that Community aid does not attempt to make any amends for the trading handicaps which it imposes on Asian Commonwealth countries.
Never has our aid been more badly needed than now. A week or so ago the Senate in Washington decided that it did not want to support any further aid to India and Pakistan. The decision is not confirmed but this is the way in which America is moving. Never has aid to India and Pakistan been more necessary, but our ability to help will be circumscribed to a certain extent by our EDF contribution.
It seems, therefore, in considering the Amendment, that we must conclude that British entry into the Community will have the consequence of seriously damaging both trade and aid with Commonwealth countries, countries which most need assistance. The Government's words of good intention and benevolence on this subject, which have not until now had the opportunity of full exploration and discussion, are no more than hypocrisy and deception.
The Clause ensures that one result of our entry will be disadvantage to the third world. The only protection we can offer is the Amendment which seeks to give us the power to retain our trading arrangements with the Third World and to protect the Asian commonwealth in particular from what we regard as the ravages of the Bill.

Mr. J. Selwyn Gummer: I am sure the Committee has listened with great care and interest to

the right hon. Member for Lanark (Mrs. Hart). On both sides of the Committee there are large numbers of hon. Members for whom the interest and concern in the Third World has been a primary one, and we all have a great deal in common in discussing the matter. Therefore, when we come to discuss it we are conscious that it is an issue which divides people who recognise and respect each other's attitudes to the developing countries. It is noticeable, for example, that those who have spoken on behalf of the developing countries are themselves very divided in their attitudes to our entry into the EEC. There are many who would put forward a case on behalf of the developing countries which was as strong and clear in favour of entry as that which the right hon. Lady has put forward in opposing entry.

Mr. Deakins: Never heard it.

Mr. Gummer: I hope that hon. Members who have not heard it will perhaps hear it now. A most effective case for entry is put forward in many propositions by those who work in connection with aid and who are concerned that it should increase to the developing countries.
I make no apology for having been one of those who was most highly critical not only of the very bad aid record of the previous Government but of the not much better record of the present Government. I therefore have an advantage through the general catholicity of my argument in discussing aid records. I was concerned that in her speech the right hon. Lady regularly managed to jump her time sequences. She was concerned always to forget the developing nature of the EEC and the way in which the Community's attitude to aid and trade has changed. It would be as well to begin any discussion on aid and trade and our entry into the EEC by considering what kind of Community the EEC is and in which ways its attitudes have changed.
She was on to a very poor point in suggesting that, because in the past most EEC aid went to countries with which it was associated, and because most of our aid went to countries with which we were associated, if Britain enters the EEC all the aid will go to countries with which the EEC is at present associated, and none will go to our former associates. Her time sequence is wrong. It is natural


that the aid which the EEC gives at present goes largely to those countries with which it has been associated historically, and with which it has special arrangements. But we should consider that aid. In other words, are we joining a Community whose record on aid is worse than ours, better than ours, or is it getting better or worse?
Every country of the EEC has reached the UNCTAD target faster than Britain. We must consider whether the Community's record has been worse this year than last, or better last year than the year before. It is clear that every year the EEC has shown itself more concerned to improve its aid to the developing countries than this country has. I suggest that we consider the movement of aid during the period of the Labour Government and compare it with the development of aid in the EEC. The previous Government had a worse aid record one year than in the previous year. It was practically at a standstill in spite of a lot of mouthing by the Labour Government. At the same time the EEC significantly improved its performance every year and the question we now face is whether that trend is expected to continue.
The Common Market has shown itself capable of significantly changing the attitude of its members towards aid. Before the Community was established, and in some of its early years a number of the members had poor aid policies and did not do all they should have done in this direction. Now, both individually and jointly through the Community financing, they are improving year by year and are producing a generally better record on aid than this country.
A very sad attitude has appeared in many of our debates on a number of different issues and it came up again in the right hon. Lady's speech. There are many things in this country of which we should be supremely proud but not everything here is automatically better than what is found in neighbouring countries. It is odd that we should hear so often the bland assumption that what we do is automatically better than what other people do. On aid, it is true that we do less well than our neighbours in terms of amounts, but the right hon. Lady says that we spend it better.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Frank Judd: Surely, when we examine the issue of aid and aid flows we see that what has been clearly established in this and the preceding debate is that it is fairly meaningless just to talk about generalised figures? We must address ourselves to the quality and type of aid, and it would be very helpful if the hon. Gentleman would begin to analyse in a bit more detail the types of aid which have been forthcoming from the Community and compare them with the types of aid and commitments in aid policy of this country.

Mr. Gummer: I said that the right hon. Lady had argued that even though the case does not stand on the amounts of aid it stands on the quality of aid, that we use our aid in a better way than the countries of the Common Market. The first criticism is that their aid goes very largely to countries with small populations in Africa. It is possible to believe that that will continue for ever. Indeed, if Britain did not join the Common Market it might well do so, because the reason why the aid goes to those countries is that they are the countries not only associated with the Common Market but historically tied to the members of the Common Market. It is no secret that those of us who support the concept of Commonwealth often do so because we believe our historic ties are of importance to remind our people of the duties and obligations we owe to the developing nations—[Interruption.] It is all very well for Labour right hon. and hon. Members to laugh at my comment on supporting the concept of Commonwealth, but it is odd that they who wish to make Britain poorer rather than richer think they are aiding the Commonwealth by so doing. It is time the gentle grins of the right hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore) were removed, at least when people are trying to discuss seriously a matter which they care about as seriously as he does. Even if the right hon. Gentleman thinks that aid to developing countries is a matter to laugh at, many of us on this side do not.
We can only ensure that the developing countries receive aid of a quality as well as a quantity which more nearly meets their needs if Britain brings to the Common Market the dimensions which her


Commonwealth has brought to Britain. The concept that we should stay outside the European Economic Community and then, laughing on the sidelines, complain that it aids the countries with which it is associated, is very odd, so odd that it is not surprising that the previous Government never made that point when discussing all the issues they would raise when they were negotiating on the matter.
But we must also face the fact that aid by itself is by no means the most important matter. The most important matter is neither the quality nor the quantity of aid but the openings to markets which any organisation, community or country gives. However much aid we give, however many new factories we help to build, however much more water we may pipe or electricity we may provide, ultimately someone must buy the products of the countries concerned. Therefore, I thought the right hon. Lady was on to the most important part of her argument when she discussed the whole nature of preference, generalised preference and the reciprocal preference arrangements not only of the European Economic Community but of ourselves.

Mr. Marten: I have been trying to catch my hon. Friend's eye for several paragraphs. Before he leaves the question of aid and moves on to trade, may I say that we probably share somewhat similar views on some of these matters. My hon. Friend showed how the Common Market contribution to aid had increased. That was looking backwards. It was rather like the growth rate argument, that because the growth rate has been good in the past it will automatically be good in the future.
Is my hon. Friend aware that this country has agreed to increase its aid to the developing countries by 7 per cent, a year for the next five years, and after that by 9 per cent? That is a very clear undertaking. What is the Common Market's undertaking in that regard?

Mr. Gummer: I agree that one is susspicious about dealing only with the past not the future. But if my hon. Friend took out a life insurance policy one of the first things he would do would be to see how the life office had dealt with its policy holders before. He would then ask himself, "How far is it likely to go

on paying out a bonus on the same sort of basis as it has in the past?" The European Economic Community has not only done better every year than it said it would but intends to increase its development aid at the same rate as it has up to now, which would be better than our development aid. The only point my hon. Friend has is that we have made a public statement that that is what we shall do, and the EEC has not yet done so. But if I were concerned with aid in a developing country I would prefer to rely on something similar to an actuarially sound business than merely upon the promises of a British Government. The previous Government made many undertakings and promises and the present Government are making a number of undertakings over 15 years. There are occasions when the British people are silly enough not to elect a Conservative Government, and then aid to the developing countries always drops with a thump and words about the developing countries increase by the bushel-load. The great achievement of the EEC is that under both Socialist and semi-Conservative Governments they have managed to deliver what they said they would, and I prefer to depend on that.

Mr. James Johnson: All this is very interesting, but let us get away from what certain people in the United Kingdom did. We are talking about the EEC, which obviously includes the French and the Italians and their attitude and behaviour in the matter of aid to overseas dependent territories. Will the hon. Gentleman comment on the question of tied aid? What will a black man in Dacca feel about the way in which the export of his country's goods—nuts, or any other commodity—is tied to business and finance houses in Bordeaux and Marseilles? Let us hear a little more about the detail rather than airy-fairy stuff comparing past Administrations in London.

Mr. Gummer: It is not airy-fairy to compare facts. But let me take the hon. Gentleman's specific case. Many people in black African territories formerly administered by this country are not at all happy about the arrangements made through very similar houses worked from this country. But do we believe that by remaining outside the EEC we shall have


more or less influence on the arrangements for aid in this area? Do we think that the relationship between France and her developing countries will have any effect on the relationship between us and our Commonwealth? Do we think that suddenly we shall have finance companies of that sort, changing the nature of our finance companies and our arrangements? I believe not, although the hon. Gentleman has a good point, which we should take up and press with the French Government. However, I do not believe it is a matter which can be altered by what we do in the Bill.
The point the right hon. Lady raised, the question of trade, is something which we can affect. That is the very serious argument. She rightly said that we were a country with a fairly generous trading history. I say "fairly" because in the manufacturing areas we have been less generous than we should have been, and perhaps we should have a bit of mea culpa about that. But certainly in primary products we have had a very generous trading history compared with the countries of the EEC. There is no doubt of that.
Again, however, we should look at the direction in which the Six have moved. What surprised me about the speech of the right hon. Lady was the scorn she poured upon the new arrangements which have been made for generalised preference. She did not say what they replaced. Listening to her, one would have thought that quotas had been placed by the EEC in order to reduce the amount of stuff coming into the EEC. She almost said so in answer to an interruption from my hon. Friend the Member for Cheedle (Mr. Normanton).
The remarkable fact about these generalised preference treaty arrangements is that by them the Six have made a giant step forward compared with what they were doing before. Of course, hon. Members opposite may say that they should have been doing a lot better. But the issue is that the EEC began as an association of countries with, on the whole, bad trading records with the developing countries, but has moved into a direction in which it is now next only to the United Kingdom in making the most generous trading arrangements in the world. That is a remarkable change

of direction and a most important one for the future.
We therefore have to ask ourselves whether we are more likely to see that change of direction continued, the whole movement, so satisfactorily begun, developing, with the doors of the EEC being opened even more widely to the Asian members of our Commonwealth, if we are inside the Common Market, or whether, with us standing outside the Community, which is, even without us, one of the most important trading units in the world, it is more likely to trade with the developing countries, of Asia in particular. It is at this point that the right hon. Lady's argument falls down. She suggests that if we join the EEC on these terms, we will gain all the bad habits of our neighbours and that they will gain none of our good habits, that somehow or other we will fail to increase our aid to their level but will reduce our trading preference to their level. She is suggesting that we will have no influence on their policies towards trade and that they will have no influence on us in aid policy. The opposite is true.
Our duty is to see how far within the Community this enormous association will be able to continue along the road it has started upon and how much pressure we can bring to bear on it. If the Community had shown over the years reduction in aid and in opportunities offered for trade, I would be with the right hon. Lady on this point—and not just on this point but on the whole question of our entry.
I happen to believe that a crucial issue for the Western World as a whole is the nature of our relationships with the developing countries. I believe that it is the biggest single issue any of us can face. But if one believes that, one must say that aid and trade depend upon wealth. One cannot go on believing that there is a mystical method of aiding these countries without making any money. It is impossible to go on like that. The last Government proved it. They did not want to cut aid and not do what they promised. They were not dishonest about it. They simply could not do it because they had not the money to do so. That is the basic issue. During their six years of office, the Labour Government could not aid effectively and


fulfil the promises they had made to the nation. Some promises they did not fulfil because they did not want to, but this promise they could not fulfil.
The right hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice) resigned from the Labour Government because they failed to fulfil their promise of increased aid. Their failure was not due to lack of intention or of lack of words. It was due to lack of money. When discussing this issue, we must look at the basic question of whether we are more likely to be able to aid and to be able to allow into our countries the kind of manufactured goods produced in the developing nations if we are inside or outside the Community. There is a cost to this nation of allowing manufactured goods in free. My hon. Friend, the Member for Cheadle knows it well, coming from an area where textiles are so important, because the policy is costly to our own textile industry, as it is to a whole range of other industries.

[SIR ROBERT GRANT-FERRIS in the Chair]

7.45 p.m.

If that is so, how best can we bear the cost? It is for this reason that I believe that the real issue is how Britain can put herself into a position satisfactory enough to enable her to aid developing countries, not on the mean level we have managed so far, nor even on the better level managed by the EEC, but on a still higher level. Asking that question, I have to come down on the side of so many people most concerned with aid to developing countries in saying that, if Britain is to do what she should do throughout the Commonwealth and other developing nations, she must put herself into a position which will enable her to grow more wealthy every year. I cannot believe that, standing outside the Community, we will be able to do anything more than what the last Government managed to do. I think that we will find it more and more difficult to aid, and that the pressures upon us by those in our nation who wish to protect their own industries against the industries of the developing countries will become almost impossible to resist.

It is for this reason, therefore, that I believe we ought to deny the Amendment. We know that the Amendment

would destroy the basis we have negotiated with the Community. It avoids the main issue, which is that the EEC is every year more generous in aid and trade, although not as generous as we should like it to be with trade but more generous than we are with aid. On the other hand, Britain is more generous with trade but less generous and every year less able to be generous in either area. The right hon. Lady's view is that if we join the EEC everything will get worse and we will sink to the lowest common denominator. I take the view, shared by so many of us, that within the EEC we will see, as we have seen already in the Six, standards rising to the highest and not dropping to the lowest. Standards have risen every year within the Community, and we believe that within the Community we will be able to do for the developing countries and their peoples not just the little we have been able to do but a great deal more and thus really fulfil our biggest duty.

Mr. Judd: I am sure that I was not alone in finding the logic of the case of the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Selwyn Gummer) rather difficult to follow. For example, he suggested that one Minister at least in the last Government resigned over the issue of the size of the aid programme they were operating. It is hardly feasible that he would have resigned if he had been convinced, as the hon. Gentleman seems to be convinced, that the last Government could not have had a better aid programme. Presumably he resigned because he felt that the Government would not have a larger aid programme although they could have done.
That is a view with which many of us on this side of the Committee would agree. I would not dissent from the view that the performance of the last Government's aid programme left a lot to be desired. The hon. Gentleman also went on, extending his argument, to suggest that the problems inhibiting the last Government were the economic difficulties with which they were confronted. I would put this question to the hon. Gentleman. How will we be in a strong position to do more on the aid front, even in a traditional way, when we have paid the price of entry laid upon us in the present proposals, when we have finished financing this highly expensive common


agricultural policy of the Community? I ask the hon. Gentleman to examine the logic of his own position in that context.
All of us are deeply grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Lanark (Mrs. Hart) for the brilliant and succinct way she analysed so clearly the aid relationships and the flows from industrialised countries in the Community and from ourselves to the developing world. When we are examining aid programmes we have to ask ourselves what are the most important issues in the developing world, what are the greatest problems confronting the developing countries? Certainly if I was asked to pick the overwhelmingly most important issue which in the end will not only affect the developing countries politically but will also affect us politically, I would say that it is the employment crisis in those countries, the fact that in the developing world as a whole there are unemployment rates in urban areas exceeding 30 per cent., the fact that already people have been born which means that in the next 10 years the population of working age in the developing countries will increase by 225 million.
The argument with which we would all agree, whatever our position on the question of entry, and which we should be putting to people in Europe and the industrialised countries as a whole, is that this is a social and political crisis which we ignore at our peril because if anyone puts a match to this potentially explosive situation we in Britain particularly will not escape unscathed. What we have to ask ourselves is how far the form of aid relationships, the form of economic relationships between the Community and ourselves and the developing countries are designed to tackle effectively this employment crisis which, as my right hon. Friend so correctly emphasised, is predominantly present within Asia with which we traditionally have important links?
If we are to tackle this problem it is clear, and the hon. Gentleman referred to this, that trade will in the long run be infinitely more important than aid. We can find all sorts of authorities to back us in this. For example, the Pearson Commission came to the conclusion
that the growth rates of individual developing countries since 1950 correlate better with

their export performance than with any other single economic factor.
Robert McNamara in his address to the World Bank last October said:
The fact remains that the major portion of the increase in foreign exchange needed by the developing countries will have to come from increased export earnings.
It seems a little strange that there has been so little reference in this debate or the one preceding it to the fact that in recent weeks and months we have seen the confrontation between the industrialised countries and the developing world at Santiago in UNCTAD. The developing countries in UNCTAD did not mince their words.
Look at what they had to say before they came to Santiago, in their preparatory conferences for that confrontation, when they spelled out in simple language the fact that they saw a trading bloc of the wealthy such as the EEC as a direct hindrance to their members to expand trade and to their own economic activities, drawing more people into employment. It will be seen that at Santiago they were spelling out the importance of multi-lateral aid relationships, and we know when we analyse the EEC programmein detail that it is not outstanding in this respect. They were also emphasising the importance of untied aid relationships, all in the cause of genuine economic development which would provide the employment opportunities that are so desperately important.
The hon. Gentleman referred to associate status and I should like to examine that point. I sometimes think that the almost final, moral accolade claimed by those who favour entry is the argument that some Commonwealth countries have been seeking associate status even before they were compelled to, even before we were in the Community, and this therefore proves that the Community must, from their standpoint, be a good thing. It proves nothing of the sort. All it proves is that they had no alternative but to form some sort of relationship with the Community.
When we talk off the record to political leaders and those with economic responsibility in developing countries already in relationship with the Community, let alone future relationships, then, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson)


said, they show that they have few illusions about this relationship. They see themselves tied as client States to a sophisticated market producing primary products and supplying them to this market on the terms laid down by it. They do not think that this is an ideal relationship but they see that it is one which they have to have rather than having no relationship.
I remember very clearly during one of my fairly recent visits to a certain Commonwealth country that the Head of State said to me when I asked him in conversation what he felt about this—and I know that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite will not accept this point—but he said, "The crisis of the confrontation between the industrialised countries and the developing countries is so great, the gap is so severe and so much widened, that this problem can only be solved on the basis of international Socialist planning." [Interruption.] I did not expect hon. and right hon. Gentlemen to agree with that. He said, "How on earth we are to see our problems overcome by the existence of a capitalist club based on Europe I fail to understand."
To many of us this is self-evident. Lest hon. and right hon. Gentlemen do not want to accept the verdict of a Commonwealth Head of State in this context, I should like to take a much more interesting authority. I have quoted some of this before in aid debates in the House and it is important. Last year I had the responsibility of acting as Rapporteur for the Committee on Economic Affairs and Development of the Council of Europe. That Committee presented to the General Assembly a report on development issues. When that was considered by the General Assembly it was adopted virtually unanimously. It would, therefore, be interesting for us, in the context of this discussion, to look at what these European politicians had to say about the situation, what they said about the report for which they voted.
I should like to quote from the report because it is interesting to note how those already in the Community see the position when discussing development rather than as we see it, looking across the Channel. It was said then: Whatever theory we may generate on the appropriate policy as regards financial aid,

the biggest test of the degree to which the industrialised countries genuinely wish to co-operate with the developing world is not the amount by which they are prepared to increase their financial and technical assistance—thoughthis is of course vital—but their willingness to agree to the reorganisation of world trade on the basis of greater justice for the less-developed countries.
The report goes on, dealing with some of the complaints which the developing countries make in this respect:
The second form of injustice about which the developing countries rightly complain concerns the variety of tariff and non-tariff barriers which at present restrict their access to the markets of the developed countries. As pointed out by UNCTAD, 'in the field of primary commodities the most restrictive trade barriers are to be encountered' "—
and my right hon. Friend emphasised this—
'in the case of temperate zone products, e.g. wheat, meat, sugar, oil seeds, oils and fats. Trade barriers are usually reinforced by domestic support policies designed to maintain the size of the agricultural sector and reduce the import dependence of the developed countries. In some cases agricultural protectionism has resulted not only in complete self-sufficiency on the part of these countries, but also in the accumulation of exportable surpluses'. As a result, the developing countries find themselves prevented from obtaining a fair share of the market of the industrialised countries commensurate with their comparative advantage, while in the case of some products, they face the competition of subsidised agricultural exports from the developed world in general and from the EEC in particular. Last but by no means least, in the industrial sector—which represents a rapidly growing proportion of the developing countries' exports—the import régime of nearly all the developed countries is strongly biased against the so-called 'cheap labour' products—which are in general precisely those products in which the developing countries enjoy the greatest comparative advantage.
8.0 p.m.
I emphasise again that it is not only Members of this Committee who happen to be opposed to the concept of entry into the Community who have prepared this document; but that this is a report of politicians in the Six at present and a report which was adopted virtually by the whole Assembly at Strasbourg.
It goes on:
The question is how far the industrialised countries are prepared to modify their present policies. As far as agriculture is concerned, there is no sign of any willingness on the part of the EEC to reconsider its protectionist agricultural policy, while the prospective enlargement of the Community threatens to deprive several developing countries of their traditional access to the British market.


This was the point which my right hon. Friend pointed out in human terms—how many people that sentence covers as contrasted with the number of people involved at the moment in the associated States. The report goes on:
As far as the industrial sector is concerned, agreement has at least been reached in UNCTAD on a general system of preferences in favour of the developing countries but it seems likely that some of the more labour-intensive items such as processed agriculture produce and textiles will either be excluded or strictly controlled. This will significantly reduce the impact of the scheme.
Here are European politicians who are saying these things and how in the face of that hon. and right hon. Members opposite can say that entry into the European Economic Community is somehow self-evidently going to improve our security or our relationship with the developing countries, I fail to understand. I know the sincerity of hon. Members, particularly of the hon. Member for Lewisham, West, about all this, but I ask them to look at the reality of the situation and not to inject into the situation their own wishes and subjective interpretation of what is likely to happen.
There are just two points I should like to make about this situation. In considering our relationship with the developing world we have to consider the structure of the Community, because, after all, the Community is not an end in itself. The Community is a piece of political machinery for doing certain things which we may or may not want to do. Is this structure of the Community well adapted to meet the needs of the majority of humanity in the developing countries? I would say that there is one fundamental point about the Community which illustrates that it is not, and that is that one of the non-negotiable cornerstones is its pernicious reactionary common agricultural policy which is designed to protect relatively high-cost production in an uncompetitive European agriculture at the expense of the development of agriculture in the Third World and at the expense of export opportunities for the Third World. Therefore, I would say that one of the inherent cornerstones in the structure of the Community works directly against those needs about which, I know, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Lewisham, West is so very sincere.
The second point to be considered is despite the structure of the Community, despite its form, despite its constitution, what are the real intentions, and what has been happening over the past 10 years? The hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) again spelled out clearly in an intervention this evening the reality of the situation, and that is that over the past 10 years the share of the European Economic Community market for imports from developing countries as a whole has decreased from 22 per cent. to 15·9 per cent. It is no good saying that it does not matter, that there may have been an absolute improvement even if a relative drop proportionately.
If we take on board the real seriousness of the massive employment crisis of the third world, probably the most important political issue in the world as a whole, with which we are all confronted, we cannot escape it by that sort of analysis. We need to be concerned with how we are to expend the opportunities for the developing countries proportionately in our markets.
In that context I would refer to another part of the Council of Europe report, where it puts it very clearly:
No programme of trade liberalisation can be expected to have a significant impact on employment in the developing countries unless it is matched by the adoption of conscious measures to restructure the economies of the industrialised countries so as to shift productive resources out of those branches of both industry and agriculture where the developing countries have a cost advantage because of their lower labour costs. So far this issue has been squarely faced by no government"—
and this is significant—
though the European countries have been prepared to envisage far greater economic adjustments as the result of trade liberalisation in the framework of either GATT or the EEC and EFTA.

Mr. Body: The hon. Member for Portsmouth, West (Mr. Judd) has delivered a devastating attack upon the common agricultural policy. I agree with almost everything he said though I recoil from that Socialist conclusion at which he hinted.
He was, I thought, rather more charitable than he needed to be about the way in which aid is distributed—certainly by the French in Africa. Those who have done their best to study that subject detect that the remarkable amount of aid seems to find its way to those erstwhile colonies


of France where there seem to be numerous patriates from France and Algeria. We do not know precisely what share of that aid goes into their pockets.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Selwyn Gummer) was right in saying that what the developing countries need is access to markets. This must depend on the terms of trade. If the terms of trade are deteriorating against the developing countries, they will be denied that access.
I would quote figures from the last 10 years to show how the terms of trade have changed between the OECD and the developing countries. Our exports—that is, exports from the OECD countries—to developing countries have risen in price by 16 per cent. Their exports of food and raw materials have fallen in price by 11 per cent. Therefore, the terms of trade have deteriorated by no less than 27 per cent. We realise at once that the major reason why our goods are more expensive is inflation, which has not been shared to the same degree by the developing countries. Their prices have fallen for a number of reasons, and one of them has been the remarkable progress they have made in increasing the production of agricultural crops.
I take one example of this change in the terms of trade which is one the Committee has heard about, it may have been from the hon. Member for Portsmouth, West, in an earlier debate on this subject, touching upon bananas. Ten years ago if a Jamaican wanted to buy a Morris car manufactured in Cowley, he had to pull down from the trees three tons of bananas to pay for it. At the beginning of last year he would have had to pull down 12 tons of bananas to pay for the same car. At the end of last year he would have had to pull down yet another ton of bananas to buy the same car. That illustrates, although it is rather an extreme case, how the terms of trade are deteriorating against the developing countries.
We know that last year there was a world surplus of two million tons of bananas, and that there are piling up surpluses of the kind of food we in Western Europe prefer to eat, and which we have bought in the past on a large scale from the developing countries. The

prices of these commodities are depressed and in this context the EEC is guilty. The Amendment, if carried, will to some extent lessen the blow for the developing countries.
The EEC believes in self-sufficiency, and towards that end it has a high levy against imported food, which has enabled the member countries of the EEC to expand their production, so that this year they are likely to have a surplus of six million tons of wheat. Wheat is the key commodity in the world production of food. They are likely to have a surplus of nearly one million tons of sugar—again, one of the most important commodities in the developing countries. This year, as last year, there will be a surplus of hundreds of thousands of tons of fruit. These surpluses must go on to the world market, and they go on at depressed prices because they have to undercut the prices of the same commodities grown by the developing countries. They get on to the world market only because they are subsidised to the tune of millions of dollars.
Wheat, sugar and fruit are of enormous importance to the developing countries, as was borne out by the report from Strasbourg which the hon. Member for Portsmouth, West gave. Yet there seems to be no chance that developing countries will be able to gain any ground in exporting their food to this country or to any of the OECD countries while prices are as depressed as they are now. If they are to be able to buy our manufactured goods and to develop their standard of living—even to mark time—the terms of trade for them must get better. All the signs are that they will deteriorate year after year from now on. That deterioration will accelerate if we enter the Community and the common agricultural policy is not reformed.
One of the conditions of our application was that we would not press for reform of the common agricultural policy. If we enter we shall deal a severe and unkind blow not only to Commonwealth countries but to all the developing countries which have looked to us for an outlet for their produce. They have tried to find an outlet in the EEC and other markets but they have found it more difficult to do so each year for the last 10 years.
As I said, I recoil from the Socialist solution of the hon. Member for Portsmouth, West, but I am willing to be an interventionist in the short term and to advocate commodity agreements. It seems to be the only way by which in the short term we can assist the trade of developing countries. Again, we shall have little chance of doing that in the Community. One has only to look at the Community's record on sugar to see how unhelpful it has been to sugar-producing countries and how it caused at one time the world price of sugar to fall to £14 a ton, which is less than half the cost of production in the most efficient sugar-producing countries in the world, such as Fiji and Queens land. That has been the record of the European Community on sugar, a commodity which is of the utmost importance to the developing countries.
I am driven to the view that there is a case in the short term for commodity agreements. One of the many reasons why I cannot support the application for entry into the Common Market is that there will be little chance of commodity agreements that will be of any use to the developing countries if we are admitted. The Amendment goes at least some way towards helping the developing countries, and I hope the Committee will agree to it. It is not perhaps the best Amendment; one could think of other steps. But they would perhaps be out of order on the Bill. I support the Amendment.

8.15 p.m.

Miss Joan Lestor: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Selwyn Gummer) is not in the Chamber as I want first to take up one or two points he made. He asked whether we and the EEC could not better help the developing world by ourselves becoming richer. His view was that by joining the EEC Britain would become richer, the EEC would become richer and more aid would be available for the developing world. The Committee is divided on the question whether Britain will become richer by joining the EEC. The fact of a country becoming richer does not necessarily benefit the countries with which it has had relations in the past. I have always been unhappy that questions of trade, aid, foreign invest-

ment and so on have all been tied up in the case for Britain joining the EEC.
The hon. Member for Lewisham, West said that EEC countries had a far better record on aid to and trade with the developing world than had Britain and that if we became members we should be able to increase the aid we gave. Those who defend our entry into Europe on the grounds that it will help the developing world never face what is happening.
The country with the most flourishing economy in black Africa, perhaps the showpiece of French aid and of EEC relations with the Third World is the Ivory Coast. More than half the commercial and industrial enterprise of the Ivory Coast is in French hands and there is no restriction on the repatriation of funds to Paris. The number of French people in the Ivory Coast has multiplied several times since independence, yet unemployment among the indigenous population has doubled, and the vast majority of peasants have had no improvement in their living standards. My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, West (Mr. Judd) gave examples of this problem. My example is an important one because we are often told to look at France and the Ivory Coast to see how much better France has done in aiding the developing world. Hon. Members are right in saying that what is important is not so much aid but trade.
I have never understood the argument that by joining a Community which contains all sorts of tariffs and restrictions and which means that we shall keep certain markets for ourselves and let in other countries only on sufferance or if it will not damage us too much, we shall automatically extend trading agreements and trade routes to the developing world. Surely the one is contradictory to the others. This is the reason that so much time at the UNCTAD conference in Chile was devoted to what was happening to the developing world in relation to Britain and the other countries seeking to join the EEC.

Mr. Normanton: When the hon. Lady speaks of the damage to the EEC, is she implying that policies should be pursued regardless of damage to a country's own industries and trade? Surely this does not make logical industrial sense since we must have regard to the damage which


may flow from a particular trading relationship, otherwise all that one is doing is cutting one's own throat and the throats of those whom one is seeking to help.

Miss Lestor: I do not think anybody could relate what the hon. Gentleman said to the point I was making. I am not saying that Britain must hold back her own development to help developing countries, though that would not be a bad case to make out. However, I am not making such a case. I am questioning whether Britain by joining a protectionist organisation will help the developing world when part of that world is already excluded from participation in trading agreements. The argument in terms of how much we shall do for the developing world has only latterly come into the thinking of the EEC; some of the EEC countries are showing some sort of concern for the developing countries.
It has also been said that the developing countries' share of world trade has fallen dramatically in the last ten years or so and that the debt burden is becoming progressively heavier. In 1970 the developing world received £5·3 billion in aid and had to replay £2·3 billion in debt service charges. If this process continues, some of these countries will be paying more in service charges than they will be receiving in aid. In looking at what is happening in the EEC, we must examine the facts and not allow ourselves to be lulled into any sort of fantasy.
I have been alarmed and saddened by some of the arguments about private investment being of great benefit to the developing world. Sir Paul Chambers aptly described the whole purpose of this sort of philosophy as follows:
It is no part of the duty of any private enterprise company to use the funds of stockholders to help the development of underdeveloped countries in such a way that the profits accruing to shareholders are less than if the funds were used in some other way.
In other words, he was saying that investment in the developing world is for profit and is not primarily to help the developing world in terms of trade since, as we all know, much of the trade which follows investments is tied to the country which is investing.
I am also alarmed at the way in which it appears that arguments can shift when dealing with aid to the developing world. When British Petroleum invested in

Alaska, we never thought of that investment as part of an aid programme to the United States, but when we invest in Mexico it is regarded as part of our aid programme. Why is it that such money is regarded as a business venture when applied to a developed country and as aid when applied to an undeveloped country?
I have asked two parliamentary Questions on the subject of reports in the South African press that South Africa is seeking to negotiate a trading agreement with the EEC. When Britain joins the EEC South Africa will lose the Commonwealth preference which she has enjoyed for so long. I believe it is quite disgusting that South Africa has enjoyed Commonwealth preference, but it is a fact that she has done so. I have been told in ministerial answers—and I am not suggesting that I have been misled—that the British Government have no knowledge of any discussions of this sort.
The facts are that in 1969 the Six decided in Brussels not to accept Botswana, Lesotho and Swaziland as associate members after British entry into the EEC because of their customs union with South Africa. The Six agreed that all African members of the Commonwealth could become Associate members, but this did not apply to those three countries since they were assumed to be in a special category. Officials said that if those three countries were to become members, South African goods would be able to enter the Common Market duty free. I am utterly opposed to any arrangements to provide for South African goods entering the EEC markets duty free, but bearing in mind the fact that Britain has given preference to South Africa for so long, it is hard that Botswana, Swaziland and Lesotho should be penalised because we have not been able to find a way of helping them in terms of associate membership of the EEC over the last few years. I am glad to see that those three countries have now been included in these provisions of this amendment, but we must look carefully at the situation to see what will happen in the future if it carried in relation to South Africa. Thus we have a position in which they have been excluded from associate status because of their relationship with South Africa


and the access that South Africa might have to markets in EEC countries.
However, the matter becomes more complicated. Not very long ago the general manager of a firm which manufactures products under the trade name "Koo" and sells 60 per cent. of its canned fruit to Britain estimated that Britain's entry into the Common Market would mean a loss of sales worth over 8 million Rand a year. He suggested that South Africa should consider establishing manufacturing facilities in an African country with associate EEC status, and then exporting to Britain and Europe without being subject to the new tariffs.
If discussions are taking place without the knowledge of the British Government—and I accept that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite have no knowledge of them—this is a matter which deserves close scrutiny. When we talk about wanting to assist the developing world, clearly this is a matter which goes very much against the sort of sympathy and assistance in terms of trade that we want to see given to the developing world but not to a country like South Africa.
I wish to make one other point about South Africa. In 1971 her Minister for Economic Affairs said in a radio broadcast that British entry into the Common Market would have far-reaching implications for South African exports to Britain of fresh, dried and canned fruits. The Minister flew to London at the beginning of June for discussions with the South African ambassadors in London and the member countries about possible methods of dealing with the problems expected when the detailed terms of British entry were determined. I do not know whether Britain has been a party to those discussions. However, I know that, together with many of my hon. Friends, I should view with great alarm and strong condemnation any suggestion that special arrangements should be made for South African goods.

[MR. BRYANT GODMAN IRVINE in the Chair]

8.30 p.m.

If this Amendment is accepted, we have to find ways of including those

countries which have been excluded because of their relationship with South Africa. It is a relationship which has come about because of their geographical positions and other considerations from which they have been unable to extricate themselves. This is vitally important. For many of us the argument about Britain joining the EEC has not been simply about whether we join a trading agreement, whether we become part of a narrow part of Europe, or whether this will marginally improve the standard of living of our people. It is far wider than that and far more important. The argument has been based largely on what British entry means to the developing world and the way in which Britain and the EEC will be forced by their own agreements to lessen their trading links with the developing world. I for one have always been opposed to our joining Europe on those grounds alone.

I do not believe that the prophecies of the hon. Member for Lewisham, West will come true, however sincerely he may believe in them. If, sadly, we join Europe next year, I believe that in a few years we shall be discussing—assuming always that we are allowed to discuss it in this House—what has been happening to the developing world and how we missed the opportunity to influence it when we had it. If we join Europe, we shall miss the opportunity that we have now to stretch out a fraternal hand to the developing world and to say, "We want to include you." I do not believe that even the most ardent Marketeer could possibly turn his face against the Amendment.

Mr. Skeet: The hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Miss Lestor) made a very interesting speech, and I listened to every word. She spoke about one or two States on the west coast of Africa where money seems to filter into the sand. This is one of the great tragedies of history. It is not a matter of doing trade with a country or giving it money. The higher echelons always get it. It never goes to those who really deserve it.
The hon. Lady will be aware that the slaughter going on in a certain part of Africa today has not been caused by the Western world. It is a purely local matter, and extremely regrettable—

Mr. Body: But his point was the same as mine. Much of this aid goes back to France. It goes to the French expatriates.

Mr. Skeet: I think that I am straying a little far from the point. I do not intend to discuss that aspect very much more.
I come instead to my other point, which is to take up the hon. Lady's concern about the preference to South Africa. The hon. Lady is much more concerned about it than I am. I do not know whether she has read the Amendment. It begins by saying:
Sections 1 and 2 of the Import Duties Act 1958 shall remain in force …".
All the argument has been on the second limb which deals with the Import Duties (Developing Countries) Order 1971. The first limb of the Amendment refers to two Sections of the Import Duties Act, 1958, the first of which gives powers to charge protective duties, and the second of which deals with Commonwealth preferences. In that Act the hon. Lady will find a direct reference to the Union of South Africa and a provision about the maintenance of Commonwealth preference. The Amendment, which the hon. Member for Eton and Slough must support, provides that Sections 1 and 2 of the Import Duties Act, 1958, shall remain in force. Therefore, the hon. Lady would wish South Africa to have the full benefit of preferences. That will be impracticable should we enter Europe.
There is another reason why South Africa should have these advantages, that is simply because before we go into Europe the more assistance we can give to black Africans the more it will advance their prosperity. When we enter Europe the common external tariff will come into operation and other matters will apply.

Mrs. Hart: I am sure that the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet) does not wish to misrepresent the Committee in any way. The essence of the Amendment relates to the Import Duties (Developing Countries) Order, 1971, which is made under the Import Duties Act. Of course, the Import Duties Act covers many other things, some of which have been replaced. The Commonwealth preference scheme has been replaced by the Import Duties (Developing Countries) Order and it does not come into the picture at all.

Mr. Skeet: There are two limbs of the contention which the right hon. Lady is putting forward in her Amendment which I have severed. I am coming to the Import Duties (Developing Countries) Order in a few moments. Before I do so, I will deal with the general points of trading with overseas territories. I regard it as important that the UNCTAD arrangements which we have negotiated are remarkably fair. I should like to see them form the basis for what Europe will do.
My right hon. Friend has already indicated that he regards these arrangements as a liberal interpretation of a Western democracy. Surely the right way to look at this matter is to say that if Europe is not as outward looking as we should like it to be, and if we have always been outward looking because we have had colonies and parts of the Commonwealth abroad, we should join this encampment so that we can persuade it from the Council of Ministers that the Third World is vital. If Santiago has not been a great success, perhaps in future years, with the earnest endeavours of the United Kingdom inside the Common Market, there will be a greater impact.
Another reason why I consider it vastly important is that this inward trading bloc we are about to join will command something like 40 per cent. of international trade. That means that a great deal of power will be wielded by this part of the Western democracies. If we are in that bloc we will attempt to steer it in the right direction.

Mr. Julius Silverman: What makes the hon. Gentleman so confident that we shall be able to steer it in the right direction?

Mr. Skeet: Once Europe gets going and the European Parliament is formulated with additional powers, British experience in running a parliamentary democracy should count.

Mr. Deakins: Federalist.

Mr. Skeet: The hon. Member is pessimistic. Of course he is, he has always been so.

Mr. Deakins: I said "Federalist".

Mr. Skeet: I am not suggesting it will be Federalistic. It could well have additional powers. We have been running


a democracy for over 1,000 years, and we are the only people in Europe who can run it properly. We have something to confer on Europe. We have always run our democracy on the theme that we have to do a great deal for the third world because the Third World is of prime importance to us.
My next point is equally significant. Quite apart from 40 per cent. of the world trade being done by the Common Market countries, including ourselves, Norway and Denmark, London happens to be financial centre of Europe. It will be the greatest centre after the United States. It will be from this focal point not merely that the money from Western Europe but also from London and the other countries will be channelled through us into those territories which will want the benefit.
What everybody has overlooked today is the immense volume of Eurodollar funds from London which are channelled out to other countries which need them. The right hon. Member for Lanark (Mrs. Hart) was concerned about the subcontinent of India. Of course, we are concerned. There are 650 million people who must not be neglected. They require investment, and the more attractive they make it the more attractive it will be to invest in those areas. Surely if the United Kingdom is in the EEC and if London is the financial centre of Europe, it will be the more influential in future years in this connection.
I agree with my hon. Friend about commodity arrangements. I have been very concerned about the right way to help overseas territories. I am not concerned about the volume of money which is given, because much of it is wasted. I am concerned about the quality of aid. The more technical and technological advice which can be given and implemented by these territories, the more valuable it will be. The more commodity arrangements which can be formulated and used throughout the world, the more valuable they will be for the countries affected.
I should like to mention two important matters. I am against the Amendment because it will perpetuate Commonwealth preferences indefinitely. That would be contrary to our obligations under the CCT. It will also be inconsistent with

two White Papers which have been issued which would preclude the Government and the Opposition from accepting it. The Command Paper of the Labour Government to which I referred earlier was No. 3345. The Amendment will also be contradictory to the agreement which we have just reached with Europe.
I think that we must keep up with the times. I have always felt that if Commonwealth preferences had gone on great things could have been achieved. GATT was brought into being and that led to erosion of preferences. Europe has a system of preferences which is being broadened still more. However, I have noted that many Commonwealth countries have reorientated their trade away from the Metropolis. A good illustration is Australia, which has now greater trade with Japan than with the United Kingdom. The value of Commonwealth preferences in that country has diminished.

Sir R. Russell: Does my hon. Friend agree that the cause of that switch in trade was that 10 years ago we told the Commonwealth countries that we wanted to join Europe and advised them to seek other outlets for their trade?

Mr. Skeet: I am not certain whether it is only that. Numerous factors come into the matter. We should recall that the Japanese made an onset on Australia and New Zealand many years ago. Australia has a number of primary commodities for sale on the international market—coal, wool and many other products—which the Japanese want. For example, the Japanese want to buy iron ore. Australia has iron ore. Therefore, the Australians find it convenient to market it in Japan. Flowing from that, if Japan is the number one trading partner, not us, Australia will give that country certain priorities. I instance the tariff on Australian malleable cast-iron fittings. The new rate of duty was 60 per cent. from 1st October, 1971. It is to be 50 per cent. from 1st January, 1973, and in 1976 it goes down to 40 per cent. It is not specifically to down the United Kingdom. Far from it. Australia is a generous and great nation. It is to give protection to her own producers and to deal with Japanese imports which are having success in Australia.
The point I am seeking to emphasise is that while we are trying to get into Europe to improve our trading position, Australia has not hesitated to go her own independent way for her own reasons. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Wembley, South (Sir R. Russell) that perhaps it was partly because 10 years of negotiations have convinced the Australians it is right to diversify their trade and to reorientate on other parts of the globe which are more proximate in the Pacific area. However, other factors have operated at the same time.
It is significant that apart from GATT, the Kennedy Round negotiations and the assembly of EFTA led to certain preferences being granted in Europe against our Commonwealth interests. Finally, there have been 10 years of negotiations in our attempts to move into Europe. I think that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has negotiated satisfactory arrangements when he has secured for the dependent territories association and for the developing countries in the Caribbean and Africa status quo until about 1975.
8.45 p.m
I am concerned to ensure that in the opening vista of the new world our friends are looking towards Britain. Perhaps I can instance two countries. New Zealand is perfectly satisfied with the arrangements. Mr. Marshall, who was the Deputy Prime Minister at the time, said in London that he was satisfied with what had been negotiated. With regard to Australia, while sugar has been penalised, only 7 per cent. of that country's exports have been affected. The rest of them do reasonably well. I should have thought that, in view of the opportunities which are opening up in Europe, there would be great advantages for the people of those countries if Britain were at the top table.
If the Amendment were accepted, it could seriously affect Section 7 of the Import Duties Act, 1958, which makes provision for exemption on imports intended for export and re-export. Plainly the negotiations will lead to the elimination of drawback under Section 9 and the abolition of the Process (Temporary Importation) Regulations of 1958. That will be followed by the adoption of a new

system which has been outlined in Europe.
I can summarise my opposition to the Amendment in this way. It is inconsistent with the common customs tariff, the adjustment of rates and the formulation of new classifications of goods under appropriate headings which we have agreed with Europe. Also, if the Amendment were accepted, it would be essential to adopt the European system of quotas. We do not have quotas in the United Kingdom; we would have them in Europe. We must be free to adopt the concept of free circulation Community transit and the Community origin rules. Acceptance of the Amendment would be inconsistent with those matters.
Finally, I return to the question of the UNCTAD countries and our own Commonwealth. I am all in favour of assisting our colleagues abroad. I refuse to accept that the Commonwealth is dissolved. But I am realistic enough to say that, in this modern world, our best way of assisting them is not through preferences which have been largely eroded—they have been written down over the course of history—but for Britain to be on the top table and ensure that the Commonwealth is kept always at the forefront of European considerations. By that means we can have a progressive Commonwealth in the years ahead.

Mr. Julius Silverman: The pith of the argument of the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet) was that we cannot accept the Amendment because it would be inconsistent with going into Europe. That begs the question. Entry to the Common Market will impose on us obligations which, in our view, will be harmful to us and to the Commonwealth and the developing countries. That is the point of our argument. The hon. Member says that if we are at the top table we shall be able to stress our view about the Commonwealth countries. Is that so?
This debate has shown that the importance of aid and trade to the developing countries is recognised on both sides of the Committee. Most hon. Members agree that the best way of proceeding is by trade rather than by what is generally loosely described as aid. Some of the countries in the Commonwealth, particularly India, are extremely sceptical about


the question of aid. India has had the traumatic experience of the change in her relationship with America during the struggle over Bangladesh.
One reason why I am sceptical about aid is that very often money which goes to developing countries never reaches those for whom it is intended. When people talk about aid, they are often talking about profit-making concerns which have nothing to do with aid. If the inhabitants of a country receive any assistance or comfort from this aid, it is almost as an accidental by-product of what was intended, or there are loans to be repaid with interest. I sometimes wonder what aid means. I think most hon. Members agree that the best way to help is to promote trade, and that is what the Amendment is about.
Whatever views are held on this matter by the hon. Members for Lewisham, West (Mr. Selwyn Gummer) and Bedford, there is no doubt that the developing countries—India is a case in point—areapprehensive about what our entry into the Common Market will mean for their relationship and trade with this country, and they have said so, sometimes in muted terms because they do not want to have a row over this issue. But there is no doubt whatsoever where they stand. They are apprehensive about the effect on them of our entry into the Community.
Reference has been made to what has happened to certain developing countries in their association with the EEC following the Yaoundé Conference. It has been said that a large part of the trade done by the EEC with the developing countries is carried on under the terms of the Yaoundé Convention with the French ex-Colonies. A large part of that finds its way eventually into the pockets of French finance houses, French investors and French expatriates who live in the country. The same applies to aid, the greatest part of which goes to the French ex-Colonies.
This is not surprising because, in precisely the same way as the agricultural policy of the Community is tailor-made to suit French interests, so the policy of aid and trade with the French ex-Colonies is tailor-made to suit French interests. I know that there has been criticism of General de Gaulle because

he looked after French interests in the negotiations, but I have never criticised him for doing that. Nevertheless, this is a fact which has to be appreciated, and anybody who believes that Britain will go to the top table and steer the Community on to its new course should ask himself how he proposes to do that in view of the possibility of a French veto—and not only a French veto but, as has been said, the veto of the countries involved in the Yaoundé Convention. They have been given a built-in veto, or at any rate the right to be consulted in order to prevent any steering of the kind suggested by the hon. Member for Bedford.
I assure the hon. Gentleman that once we are in the Community the French will say, "These are our interests, and we shall stick to them. You can talk as much as you like about steering the EEC in the direction you want. The voice of France will be the preponderant voice, as it always has been in the Community."

Mr. Skeet: It is a matter of reconciling interests. There are a number of French ex-Colonies, and France wishes to pursue her interests there, but we, too, have interests abroad, and there must be a compromise somewhere. We have friends in Europe who will back us. The argument is about assisting the third world, and public opinion will be behind us on this issue.

Mr. Silverman: Why should it be thought that France will compromise on these issues or sacrifice her financial interests and the interests of her ex-Colonies in favour of ours? In the same way, France will not compromise in her agricultural policies. She will not do it. She has threatened time and again that if her policies were not pursued and accepted, she would break up the Common Market. She has pursued persistently a policy which might be called blackmail for the purpose of preservation of her view of how Europe should be run, and her view is that it should be run in the interests of France.
When talking of compromise and of people coming to an agreement, one must bear in mind that France has all the instruments at her disposal. She can use her veto against an agreement. She has not only a veto but the vested


interests of her Colonies and her investment in them, which has the backing of recognition. I cannot see that we shall get any real concession about these.
The hope that when we enter the EEC the interests of the British ex-Colonies of members of the Commonwealth will get at least the same consideration as the French is based merely upon an unreal optimism and a failure to accept the lesson of what has happened in the EEC since it has existed. That is why the Commonwealth countries are so apprehensive about what will happen to them.
The hon. Member for Lewisham, West evinced other arguments. He said that we shall become richer if we enter the EEC. This matter has been argued, but I very much doubt whether, with our contribution to Europe and to French agriculture, we shall become richer. We shall see. But even if the hon. Gentleman is right about that, the facts have also shown that even if we became richer, that would not of necessity help the developing countries. What has happened over the years has been that whilst the developed countries have become richer the developing countries, or the so-called underdeveloped countries, have become poorer, for various reasons which, have been well set out.
Something like the Amendment ought to be accepted by the Committee to give the Commonwealth countries, at any rate, the same rights and trading powers and to give us the right to give them the same preferences that we do at present. In the absence of that, I can safely forecast that within a short historical term, the Commonwealth will fall apart.
One cannot base the continuation of the Commonwealth simply upon history. There must be some other bond to retain it. There used to be one bond. A person from the Commonwealth had a right to come to the mother country. That has gone. I shall not argue tonight whether that is right or wrong. But that has gone completely. The only remaining bond, apart from the annual Commonwealth conference, is trade. If trade goes and if the preferences go, there will be no link whatever to keep the Commonwealth together. If we enter the EEC upon the terms proposed, without the benefit of an Amendment of this sort, there is little hope of the Commonwealth surviving for more than a very short historical term.

9.0 p.m.

Sir R. Russell: I intervene for only a few moments, largely because I have been provoked by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet). My hon. Friend tried to belittle the Commonwealth preference system and said—which is true—that only 11 per cent. of Australia's exports come to Britain. I beg my hon. Friend to remember that the sugar, the dairy produce, and the canned fruit in particular have vital markets in Britain which the Australians will find it difficult to replace. I do not know where else my hon. Friend thinks the Australians will find markets for that produce.
My hon. Friend said also that preferences have been largely eroded. That is true of specific preferences. Naturally they have been eroded by inflation. However, it is not true of those on and ad valorem basis. Most of our preferences are on an ad valorem basis and they still remain the same, unless they have been re-negotiated in trade agreements.
I know that it is often thought that Australia has cut her preferences on our exports to Australia. What happened in the 1957 trade agreement was that Australia took powers to reduce the preferences, but she has not implemented those powers. I think that most of the preferences are at the same rate as they were before that agreement came into force.
I hope that my hon. Friend will have a more charitable attitude towards Commonwealth preference, because it still plays a great part in furthering our trade with the other parts of the Commonwealth and I should hate to see it disappear, though I am afraid that this is what will happen as a result of the Bill.
I hope, too, that the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Miss Lestor) will have a little more friendly attitude towards trade with South Africa, even if she is in disagreement with the system there; because South Africa gives us preferences as well as receiving them from us and we have a favourable trade balance with South Africa and have had for a number of years. If no help can be given to South Africa as a result of our joining the Community, I hope that it will be possible to do something for the former High Commission territories, despite the


fact that they are within the South African customs union.
The hon. Lady did not like the thought of any negotiations going on under which South African industry might be transferred to a developing country to get produce imported into this country. I do not see anything wrong with that, because it gives employment in that developing country which might otherwise not be given and it also helps South Africa, and therefore the people of South Africa, and I should have thought that it would have been the object of all hon. Members to try to do that.
I beg hon. Members opposite who think the same as I do about the danger of our joining the Common Market to realise that, if we can help South Africa in any way, we should try to do so, because we would be helping the people of all races of South Africa at the same time. I support the Amendment.

Mr. Deakins: I hope that the hon. Member for Wembley, South (Sir R. Russell) will forgive me if I do not comment on his relatively brief remarks. I shall comment briefly on two speeches made by pro-Marketeers opposite.
The main relevant point made by the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet) was that, if we go into Europe, our big and strong colonial tradition will help to make the Community outward-looking. The hon. Gentleman forgets that the French also in 1958 had a very long and honourable colonial tradition, but they did not help to make the Community outward-looking in the way that we want it made outward-looking.
The time for us to use the influence of our colonial tradition would have been in the entry negotiations and not afterwards. The fact that we signally failed to protect the interests of the developing countries in the entry negotiations does not augur well—in fact, it augurs badly—for our chances once we are in.

Mr. Skeet: There is a big difference between the French and ourselves. The French had not got colonies right throughout the world as we had, nor had they had them for the period we had had them for. The final factor is that our investment abroad is very much vaster than the French investment has ever been.

Mr. Deakins: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says. That merely makes it more imperative that we should do our best to protect the interests of the developing Commonwealth countries in the way that France succeeded in protecting the interests of its colonial territories. It did not succeed in making the Community outward-looking generally, which is what we are supposed to be aiming for.
I want to comment on the remarkable speech of the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Selwyn Gummer). It was a moderate speech and coming from a pro-marketeer was very surprising since it showed the existence of a pro-marketeer with a social conscience about the developing world. But I recall Dr. Johnson's comment when his attention was drawn—and here I make no personal allusion—to a dog which was walking on its hind legs. He said: "Sir, it is like a woman preaching. It is not well done but we are surprised to find it done at all". That is the attitude I have towards the speech of the hon. Member for Lewisham West. It was a remarkable speech but I shall resist the temptation to praise it in that regard because it was a rather narrow speech and it omitted any mention of the iniquities of the common agricultural policy. The hon. Member said nothing about the dreadful and growing gap in living standards between the Western countries and the poor nations of the world.
I would like to follow up what my right hon. Friend, the Member for Lanark (Mrs. Hart) said about the Common Market's generalised preference scheme when she moved the Amendment. She criticised it on at least two grounds and I have two further criticisms. It is just as well that the Committee should be aware of the nature of the animal with which we shall have to deal once we join the EEC and with which we shall have to harmonise our generalised preference scheme.
First, the Community Preference Scheme has 1968 as its base year. The scheme was drawn up in 1970 so that the Community could have taken a much more up-to-date base year. Instead it chose a very bad base year and they have allowed the developing countries throughout the world a 5 per cent. increase in exports on that base year at a time when


world trade generally has been growing at the rate of 15 per cent. a year. The generalised preference scheme does not even cover the whole of the existing trade of the developing countries with the Common Market as it was in 1969, let alone in 1972, 1973 and 1974, when we shall be seeking to harmonise our scheme with it.
The other pernicious feature of the Common Market scheme relates to its quotas where there is competitive tendering between different nations. There is the dreadful and unfortunate spectacle of two poor developing countries which want to sell the same commodity to the Common Market having to compete with each other for an appropriate share of the quota and that has led, is leading and will continue to lead to price-cutting between the two countries. Ultimately this will remove such advantages as the developing countries have gained by the reduction or elimination of tariffs. It is a dreadful scheme.
My right hon. Friend referred to the position of the Asian Commonwealth countries. When we questioned the Chancellor of the Duchy during the long year of the negotiations about why certain countries were not being offered associate status, we were told that such status would not be considered appropriate. Since these countries constitute about two-thirds of the population of the Commonwealth and about a quarter of the world population, it is absolutely appalling that we should not have made some more specific arrangements to look after their interests.
Vague assurances and a declaration of intent are no use to these countries. We start to search for the reasons why the Community should have excluded all the Asian Commonwealth countries. I do not believe there is any political implication here. I believe it was because it was frightened at the size of the problem and decided to postpone it to the Greek Kalends. The issue will not be satisfactorily dealt with as long as we remain members of the Community, which I hope will not be for long. In the light of this poor prospect for the Asian Commonwealth countries, it was perhaps the supreme failure of the negotiating team in the long year of negotiation that they achieved nothing concrete for them. There was no firm assurance about the

future levels of their trade with the Community when the common external tariff is imposed.
The developing countries also have to fear the imposition of the common agricultural policy. I spoke for quite a long time about that on 26th April, and I do not intend even to try to summarise the many criticisms I made, which have been echoed by hon. Members on both sides in our Committee debates since. The common agricultural policy is to be condemned root and branch. No one, not even the most ardent pro-Marketeer, has put in a good word for it in our debates. The logical consequence of accepting it without any major amendment, which is what we have agreed to in the negotiations, is undoubtedly that the developing countries' agricultural exports and exports of semi-processed agricultural products will be adversely affected.
It is not enough for the hon. Member for Chertsey (Mr. Grylls), for example, to talk in a previous debate about there being no tariff on raw materials. The only reason for that, and why we are allowed to continue to import raw materials duty-free, is that they are the basic commodities needed to give that industrial growth which is, we are told, the main reason why we are going into the Common Market. If the Community could dig the raw materials out of the ground or produce the tropical products now being guaranteed duty-free entry, it would do so. Under the common agricultural policy it is doing absurd things, like expanding oil seed production, olive oil production and rice production, which is the biggest absurdity of all. Then it finds that it must spend money under the FEOGA budget on dumping rice, to the detriment of the interests of third countries which are dependent on rice exports for a much bigger proportion of their total trade than the Common Market countries are.
It is a pity that although the debate has gone on so long we have not heard a little more from people who are genuinely concerned about the interests of the developing countries and are not merely putting forward what is in essence just wishful thinking about our future influence in the Community.
Aid and trade cannot be seen as crumbs from the rich man's table. It is


not logical, and it is immoral to claim that we can help the poor countries only by first making ourselves richer. The argument is doubly immoral, because if we should succeed in making ourselves richer we should be increasing the gap in living standards between ourselves in Western Europe and the poor countries of the world, and no amount of aid and trade thereafter would be able to make up the gap.
We must think increasingly of making sacrifices. I know that that is not politically popular, and will not be acceptable to all my right hon. and hon. Friends, but I believe that we must in the long term think in that way. As we have been unable in the negotiations, when it is supposed to have wanted us in, to make the Community make any sacrifices to help the developing countries, what chance have we once we are full members?
For those reasons I hope all hon. Members will support the Amendment.

Mr. Ian Lloyd: I find myself drawn unexpectedly into this debate by the inherent interest of some of the arguments and aspects of the Amendment.
It is a pity that my colleague the hon. Member for Portsmouth, West (Mr. Judd), with whom I participated in the debate in Strasbourg to which he referred, is no longer in the Chamber. The report from which he quoted was strongly criticised in that debate of the Council of Europe Assembly, for very good reasons. The Committee may be interested in some of the reasons, the fallacies in the report and some of the arguments. I begin with the question of definition of aid and the rather arbitrary definition used to distinguish between what is known as official aid and private investment, and the attempt to draw from this distinction a fundamental conclusion about the economic impact of the flow of resources.
9.15 p.m.
It seems to me that the flows of resources created by capital investment, whether the capital is provided by the Government or by the private entrepreneur in the first instance, are, over a long period, exactly the same. I remem-

ber, as many others must, being told with great pride of the enormous contribution made to the development of what was the then under-developed world of South America, the United States, Canada, India and Africa by the export of capital—private, very largely—from the London capital market. The most interesting aspect of this is that although substantial flows of dividends and therefore of real resources undoubtedly returned, particularly to the United Kingdom and, to a secondary extent, to Western Europe, nevertheless the railways are stillthere, the harbours are still there, the infrastructures created by the export of British capital are still there. If that argument is true of the export of private capital in the 19th century, it is no less true of the export of private capital in the second half of this century.
The conclusion to be drawn is that the important thing is to create in the countries using capital resources—which are, after all, the most significant thing on this earth in this day and age—an understanding of the fundamental importance of using them efficiently. This might be done successfully where these resources are made available, as it were, for free, where there is no obligation to return them or for interest to be paid on them, and the impression is created that capital is something conjured out of the hat by the developed world and made available. But it does not necessarily follow. Nor, obversely, does it necessarily follow, where private capital is made at world market rates of interest, that that is an indication of sacrifice that the peoples of the world have to make so that capital can be created and exported and made available to developing countries. This is of some importance. It is an indication of a scarcity which is a real scarcity, and no magic wand waving by any Government or international agency can eliminate it. The developing countries and those peoples in them who have the responsibility and the charge of using these scarce resources should be aware of the fact.
I come to the interesting point made by the right hon. Member for Lanark (Mrs. Hart)—the question of whether the developed countries are likely to be in a better or worse position to increase the flow of aid if, as has been widely argued.


we should suddenly set a ceiling to the growth of real income in the developed world. This was one of the interesting arguments used in the Strasbourg debate. I had an interesting exchange with the President of the United Nations General Assembly on this matter. I am sure the Committee will be interested because we are all suffering from it.
Throughout the Western developed democracies, as I see it, Governments and the politicians supposed to control them are totally incapable of persuading those who elect them and those who support them in Parliament that the real incomes of their peoples are adequate. Indeed, the general inflationary phenomenon throughout the Western world is an indication of our incapacity to do this. It is a total failure. They all want more—more in real terms—faster than the developed economies can supply it.
The argument made—and in was used by the President of the United Nations General Assembly—is that this is a function of leadership, that it is up to the politicians to give a lead in saying that there should be an increased sacrifice of real resources from the developed countries so that aid and all that goes with it can be increased. But let us be realistic. What success are we likely to have? What symptoms are there that we are being successful in doing it?
Many distinguished commentators on world affairs are constantly saying that we should increase the flow of aid to the under-developed world. But in what ways does this find an effective application? There may be one or two conspicuous exceptions, but where throughout the developed world is aid standing at more than 1 per cent. of the gross national product?
Perhaps a more realistic question is: where throughout the developed world is it likely within the next decade to be raised significantly above the level of 1 per cent. of GNP? The answer is that it is not. If we are to be realistic in our discussions on these problems we should start from that level, from the level of the likely share of the resources of the developed world which will be made available within the political context in which we find ourselves—one of dramatic difficulty, in some ways of dramatic failure—and within that con-

text we can perhaps talk a little more realistically.
Another subject of great concern raised by this Amendment is that of commodity agreements. So often it is found that because there has been partial success in some commodities with some types of agreement, it is possible to generalise this success and to apply it, as it were, to all raw materials, all major commodities particularly those which are exported by the under-developed countries. Here there is an inherent dilemma which we are reluctant to face. It is a dilemma inherent in the fact of scarce resources and the present system. The dilemma is that we may if we wish, by all sorts of arrangements, stabilise the output of a particular commodity in a developing country.
We may as an alternative, by other arrangements, stabilise the real income which is achieved by the producers of such an output. There is no possible device—at least if it exists I do not know of it—which will enable any commodity agreement to stabilise both the real income and the output, and so a fundamental choice must be made. This point has been brilliantly argued by Sir Sydney Caine, former principal of the London School of Economics, in a much-neglected pamphlet in which the dilemma is made absolutely clear and the failure of so many policy-makers to recognise this dilemma and to see that there is a choice which is inescapable, and therefore to approach the whole question of commodity agreements with just a little more caution, is pinpointed.
I can give a simple illustration. It would be desirable to stabilise the real income of cocoa producers on the West Coast of Africa. This could be done possibly by making available from Western Europe a supply of funds that was in some way unrelated to the price of cocoa. This would not necessarily stabilise the output. If both were to be done the requirement would be a cocoa overlord for Western Europe who could prescribe exactly how much cocoa we should drink, and who could prescribe that in the face of a changing pattern of tastes throughout Western Europe in relation to other beverages. This is a degree of control of the consumer which


I am sure everyone in the Committee, and the most consumers, would find totally unacceptable.

Mr. Marten: Not Dr. Mansholt.

Mr. Lloyd: Possibly not. There is a more fundamental aspect of this which the Committee should not neglect, even though hon. Members may not agree with much of the analysis or many of the conclusions of the document to which I am about to refer. I suppose most hon. Members will have heard of the report of the Club of Rome which dealt with the implications of the MIT study of this basic question of whether there can be continuing growth of the major world economies.
Whatever one may think of the analysis or the conclusions which although drastically dealt with by some critics, have been perhaps unduly neglected, one conclusion is inescapably clear. We can take our own time dimension, but sooner or later the question must be faced: how do we maintain on the planet as a whole a sustainable gross national product? The whole question of aid and commodity agreements, the relationship between the under-developed and developed countries, must ultimately be considered in this context. How is the balance between the two to be maintained in such a way that we do not produce the total collapse predicted by this report?
I turn to the political pressures behind protectionism. I am no defender of the common agricultural policy. Basically my position is that of a free trader, as the Committee will have concluded. I believe that the merits of free trade on the whole largely outweigh those of any other system which has been devised. Nonetheless, we must, particularly in this Committee, recognise the realities of political pressures. Why is there a common agricultural policy? Why throughout the history of this country has agricultural protectionism exercised a profound influence on our political decision making—as it has? Why is it today exercising an equally powerful and, to some hon. Members on both sides, regrettable, influence on the decision making of the European Community? The answer is, of course, perfectly simple, and we all understand it. It is the pressure from powerful,

entrenched agricultural interests with a political voice.
Therefore, if we are to say that this must disappear with a wave of a magic wand, and how fine it would be if we could develop an economic community without agricultural protectionism, or in which it would exercise a much less powerful influence on our decision making, then it seems to me that the obligation rests on all who say we must say how the political power of the agricultural interest can be reduced, if that is what we want.
Surely this applies equally to the, perhaps, more significant sector in Western Europe as a whole, and that is the industrial sector. Many hon. Members have argued that the underdeveloped countries must gain much freer access to the industrial markets of Western Europe. So they should, perhaps, by any criteria, but on those who say they should rests the very heavy obligation to say how we can deal with the political pressures—for example, of the shipbuilding unions in this country which are asked to accept the import of ships from Brazil, from Spain, and from what will undoubtedly be even less developed countries than those over the next two decades. Of course this will happen, and those political pressures will be generated and they will find their focus here in this Chamber. There is no doubt about that whatsoever.
All I am asking the Committee to do in considering the Amendment and its implications is to be a little more realistic and to see the world as we know it and as we find it, and, perhaps, to make a sensible decision.

Mr. Michael Meacher: The hon. Member for Portsmouth, Langstone (Mr. Ian Lloyd) went rather wide in making a tour d'horizon which took him round the world. I hope he will forgive me if I return to what was, I think, the main theme running through the arguments of those who oppose the Amendment.
It is the quite simple argument that if Britain were to go into the Common Market our capacity to assist the underdeveloped countries would grow. This is a very tantalising argument and one easy to put forward. It has been repeatedly used in this country in support of a growth policy which, it is alleged, would automatically lead to a greater degree of


redistribution. The trouble is that there is no evidence at all this necessarily would be so.
It so happened that the British Government in 1886 decided for the first time to keep national statistics about the economy and the distribution of income. It is very interesting that if one looks at them one notes that today, at a time when the economy, I suppose, is about 300 per cent. or 400 per cent. above what it was at that time, the distribution of resources as between the various sections of the population, the bottom tenth, the upper quarter, or whatever it is, has virtually not changed at all. There is the most remarkable rigidity in the distribution of income and resources. There is no reason to suppose that if we were to enter an international community the international distribution of resources between the developed and developing countries would change. On this basis there is no evidence at all—unless there were specific policies brought into operation designed to achieve that distribution.
For that reason I believe that one must pay particular attention to what is at the heart of this argument. I accept what has been said that the crucial issue is access by the developing countries to various markets. It is important to emphasise right at the outset—though I shall be relatively brief at this hour—that the main question behind the Amendment is that the pattern of future trade between economic blocs and the developing world is not as altruistic as aid programmes are so often made out to be. Since our own growth prospects are inextricably bound up with the capacity of the developing countries to absorb an increasing proportion of our exports, it is just as much in our interests as in theirs to ensure the fullest and fastest development of their economy. This issue depends on the pre-existing trade relations between the developing world and either the United Kingdom or the EEC, and it depends even more on the relative merits of the alternative generalised schemes of preference.
9.30 p.m.
Over the last few years the developing countries' share of total external EEC trade has been falling and has represented a smaller proportion of total imports into the EEC than into this country. The main issue for the future is the relative

advantage of the two alternative systems of trade preference.
The United Kingdom system offers the developing countries a range of goods on which tariffs will be reduced or eliminated without any restrictions on the basis of quota. The exports of developing countries are controlled by this country on the basis of the invocation of one of the safeguards or escape clauses of the United Kingdom Government. The EEC, on the other hand, bases its preference notoriously on tariff-free or tariff-reduced quotas.
It may not be immediately obvious which of these two systems offers the greater concessions to developing countries, since that depends upon on how often the escape clauses are invoked, but the United Kingdom Government have made it clear that the escape clauses will be invoked only exceptionally. If this promise is carried out, there can be little doubt that the system without quota ceilings is likely to offer far greater opportunities for extending trade in the developing countries.
The Community scheme suffers from three well-known disadvantages. First, there is the arbitrary nature of the fixing of the quota ceiling. Second, the quota stipulation sacrifices the widely accepted principle that competitive imports should be controlled only on the basis that they are causing or threatening to cause substantial damage to domestic industries. Third, the handling of quotas, as has been discovered by British Governments which have used this mechanism, is extremely cumbersome and is likely to lead to a great degree of bureaucratic proliferation, which is perhaps a curious preoccupation of the present Government.
Apart from these more general questions, there are difficulties in the operation of a quota system. The main EEC formula in 1971, whereby the basic quota equals the 1968 exports of developing countries into the Community plus a 5 per cent. supplementary quota of imports from all the developed world into the Community of that product, is heavily weighted against the growth potential of developing countries. The reliance on past data, plus the rapid growth of manufactures which has been achieved by many developing countries in recent years, means that the Community's preference scheme gives small opportunity for trade


expansion for those imports. The normal growth of developing countries in the manufacturing sector over recent years has exceeded the tariff-free quota. For particular products this depends on the developing country's share in the Community's imports in the base year of 1968.
If the share were as high as 20 per cent., assuming the average rate of growth of imports for that product in the EEC throughout the Six were maintained, it would take only 1½ years before the imports of that product exceeded the quota. If on the other hand the level were rather lower, say 10 per cent., it would take only three years; but even if it were as low as 5 per cent. it would take only seven years before imports of that product exceeded the quota. This is a strong disincentive to long-term investment in manufacturing growth in the developing countries, given the restrictions that a powerful trading bloc would exercise.
The situation is even more serious than this. It is precisely those commodities in which the developing countries have the greatest interest and export capacity which are likely to exceed the import quota quickest. For semi-finished manufactures the actual imports from developing countries overtook the tariff-free quota even in the first year of operation of this scheme. Only in the case of machinery and transportation equipment and in other advance sectors has there been much leeway available for expansion of trade by the developing countries. It is in this category of commodity that developing countries are not competitive and will not be competitive for a great many years.
The essential point about the general use of tariff quotas is that they offer no incentive to new exporters or to new investors in developing countries, which is the basic aim of generalised trade preference, unless the duty-free quota is sufficiently larger than the prevailing trade flows to warrant the extra resources going into investment.
The case against the Community's generalised scheme of preferences and for the Amendment is that this crucial condition is not met. It is true that Community officials argue that quotas

will not automatically be applied except for "sensitive" items. But since the quotas are closely defined, no sensible investor in the developing countries can regard such informal assurances as a ground for confidence in building up new investment, particularly in semi-finished manufactures.
The position today is that the Commonwealth developing countries enjoy tariff preference and to a great degree duty-free exemption in the British market. But if the Amendment is not accepted and the EEC tariff-free quota system is adopted, the most favoured nation duties will be applied to those Commonwealth products which exceeded the tariff quotas. These will apply to a great many, and perhaps to even most, of the products of the greatest export capacity of the developing countries. At the crucial margin, Commonwealth products would become subject to most favoured nation treatment, not to the duty-free treatment they get in the British market.
A further important point is that Britain has proposed to extend the duty-free treatment to the import of manufactures—apart from textiles and other sensitive items—from all developing countries. If this were carried through, there could be no doubt that the British generalised preference scheme would give a much bigger incentive to investment in developing countries than the Community's scheme is ever likely to generate at present.
In my view, it is no use living on a hope and a prayer, as the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Selwyn Gummer) was only too ready to do. One looks at the system as it exists without assuming that there is any reason why it should change. The present structure of benefits clearly is favouring the British generalised scheme of preferences with regard to the developing countries.
If the Amendment is not accepted, it is all too likely that an enlarged EEC will tend to be more inward looking at least in the medium term, during the period of assimilation. This has given rise to justifiable fears about the trading prospects of the poor countries. The rather limited EEC scheme of preferences may then be used as a justification for continuing protectionism and as a pretext for halting the present pattern of trade


liberalisation. Instead of moving towards a freer and better planned worldwide pattern of trade, there is a danger of proliferating limited schemes of trade preferences in which major powers like the United States, Japan and an enlarged EEC will dominate their respective regimes of tied trade partners. Not only might this exclude some of the most populous countries among the poor like India and Pakistan and act against our own long-term growth prospects in trade; it might also undermine the essential vision—essential from our own point of view just as much as from theirs—of an integrated international economy.

[MISS HARVIE ANDERSON in the Chair.]

Mr. Grylls: When we debate overseas aid, there is always a very wide degree of agreement in principle. As my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Selwyn Gummer) pointed out in his moving speech, the vast majority of hon. Members believe passionately, as Members of the House have for perhaps more than 100 years, that this country should continue to give as high a proportion as she is able in order to help the less-developed countries. In that respect, there is common ground between the two sides of the Committee.
I listened carefully to the speech of the right hon. Member for Lanark (Mrs. Hart) and found myself in sympathy with much of what she said. However, many of us felt a certain degree of annoyance to put it no higher, when she began to chide this side of the Committee and the Community for a lack of activity. When one looks back to the year 1968 and compares the respective performances of the then Labour Government and of the Community, one sees that the percentage of our gross national product spent in overseas aid was 1·04, whereas that of the Community was 1·2. It is a little smug of those who are against joining the Community to suggest that all that we have done is better than other countries have done. In many ways it is. However, that is not the case in terms of overseas aid. From its very early days since it really got going, the Community has made a major contribution to increasing prosperity in the under-developed parts of the world, and we shall wish to participate once we are inside the Community.
The hon. Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Deakins) began by telling us that it was immoral to think that a country can give more overseas aid only if it is itself getting more prosperous. I understand the moral feeling behind the hon. Gentleman's remarks. However, it is one thing to have a moral feeling. It is another to deal with practical facts. A moral feeling in this Committee will not help the under-developed countries.
All that we can do is press the Government of the day to ensure that they do better than they are doing now—

Mr. Deakins: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that another task facing those who think that this is a moral issue is to educate the electorate?

9.45 p.m.

Mr. Grylls: The more that we can encourage the electorate to persuade and push us as individual Members in turn to persuade and push the Government the better. But members of all political parties know that there are some people in the country at large who are less enthusiastic about overseas aid. Therefore, we must give a firm and clear lead. It is absolutely obvious to anybody who thinks about the matter in practical terms that we have to get the country expanding and more prosperous, and then we will be able to give more overseas assistance.
Let me give one comparison. If one asked someone, "Are you likely to earn a higher wage in an industry making a profit than you are in an industry making a loss?" the answer would be obvious. It is surely common ground that unfortunately some of the nationalised industries, which for so long have made losses, pay the worst wages. It is in the expanding, prosperous industries that people can earn real wages, because there is more to give away. Exactly the same applies with overseas aid.
In 1969 Germany's aid was 40 per cent, higher than Britain's. Yet, as we have heard in this debate, we have a greater colonial tradition than any other European country. During the period 1967 to 1969, Germany sent overseas aid of 3,200 million dollars, a considerable part of which was private investment capital. In the period 1967 to 1969, aid from the EEC countries out of public


funds increased by 50 per cent., whereas aid from other western countries increased by only 42 per cent. Those figures prove one thing, that the Community is absolutely dedicated to expanding its aid and assistance to the rest of the world.
The right hon. Member for Lanark referred to the fact that a lot of the Community aid has gone to former French-African colonies and too little has gone to India and Pakistan. None of us will disagree with that. That is generally true. It is a natural consequence when one has regard to the present membership of the Community. As Members we will bring our influence to bear to see that aid is given to the parts of the world with which we have long and traditional ties. We have a powerful part to play in ensuring that aid will go to those countries.
The report of the Select Committee on Overseas Aid—a Committee which I joined at a late stage following the General Election and of which I was a member, unfortunately, for only a short time—and the expertise that is available will be a useful contribution to ensuring that overseas aid and general assistance from the expanded Community will go to the countries with which we have ties.
There is no difference between us. We want to see more aid given to countries like India and Pakistan, and I am confident that we shall see that happen.
Later in the debate there were a number of critical remarks about the Government and the result of the negotiations concerning the Asian countries. When one looks at the facts of the matter, one must come to a different conclusion. It was said that nothing had been done for India and Pakistan. However, to give one example, they have been given great assistance in respect of what is for them an important commodity, namely, tea, which will continue to have a Community tariff. Her Majesty's Government were able to negotiate that assistance for India, Pakistan and Ceylon.
Later in our proceedings we shall be talking about the Caribbean and other sugar agreements which have been generally accepted by the sugar-producing countries. The Chancellor of the Duchy

of Lancaster played a considerable part in obtaining those agreements. However, as is well known, the rest of the Asian Commonwealth countries are able to negotiate their own association agreements under Part 4 of the Treaty of Rome, and many are now doing so. It is not up to us to negotiate those agreements for them; the door is open, and many are going in.
Hong Kong particularly will be assisted within the scope of a generalised tariff agreement. It is not right to say that the Asian Commonwealth has been neglected. It is interesting to look back to the Singapore Commonwealth Conference which the British Prime Minister attended. It was quite clear that there was no criticism from any Commonwealth country. Not one Commonwealth country said to my right hon. Friend, "Please do not join. We do not want you to join. It will be very damaging to us." Some of them asked for special assistance, and this my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster was able to negotiate successfully.
I believe that as a result of our membership of the Community we shall see a further leap forward in the contribution that it can make and that the whole Committee sincerely wishes to see. As my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West said, this is perhaps one of the most exciting prospects of membership of the Community.
I take the point made by the hon. Member for Walthamstow, West that to think only of our own prosperity as an individual country is not a matter of which to be proud. We believe that this is essential, too, because we represent our constituents. However, it is something of which to be proud to say that we are interested in doing something for the other half of the world which is so much less well off than ourselves. This is surely following the proud tradition we have maintained throughout the last century and this century in assisting those countries we want to help. I firmly believe that membership of the Community provides the best way for us to play a positive part in helping other countries.
Therefore, I ask the Committee to reject the Amendment.

Mr. Noble: I should like to start by referring to the detail of the Amendment and then, as before, answer some of the questions which have ranged rather wider.
I cannot recommend the Committee to accept the Amendment because it runs counter to the provision made in Schedule 3, Part I, for the eventual repeal of Sections 1 and 2 of the Import Duties Act, 1958. We shall continue to use these powers, as amended by the Bill, to establish and charge our transitional tariffs. But once this process is complete and customs union is achieved, there will be no effective scope for the independent exercise of a power to impose protective duties as envisaged in Section 1 or to afford preference to Commonwealth goods as envisaged in Section 2. The common customs tariff will then apply uniformly in the United Kingdom as in other member States. To this extent it will no longer be appropriate to retain Sections 1 and 2.
This is the essence of the position, which has long been known to everybody. Joining a customs union inevitably means pooling tariff autonomy, and the CCT as a whole was never a negotiating issue. It was made clear by both Governments before negotiations started that we accepted the CCT, and it has always been recognised by ourselves and the Commonwealth that our joining the EEC necessarily meant that we should have to phase out Commonwealth preference. However, we have negotiated transitional arrangements to ensure that all concerned will be able to adjust gradually to these consequences; and special arrangements, which are set out in detail in the Treaty of Accession, have also been negotiated which will help many of these countries.
Concerning UNCTAD preferences in the 1971 Order, our membership of the Community does not entail any basic change. We cannot maintain them in exactly their present form. That would be incompatible with our Treaty obligations which are to apply the enlarged Community's scheme from 1st January, 1974.
The details of the enlarged Community scheme remain to be settled, but in the discussions which will take place both we and the Community will be seeking

scope for improving the benefits which developing countries can derive from these preferences, though in doing so it is necessary to maintain some balance between the needs of our own domestic industries and our desire to help the developing world.
I should now like to deal with some of the points raised in this interesting debate. The right hon. Lady the Member for Lanark (Mrs. Hart) asked what consultations we have had with our dependent territories in the West Indies about whether they want an association agreement. The answer is that, although we are responsible for their external relations, it is entirely up to them whether they want a Part IV relationship with the Community—that is, the equivalent for dependent territories of a Yaoundé type relationship for independent territories. I need hardly add that, although the decision will be entirely for them, we shall continue to make available to them any guidance or assistance we can in helping them to reach their decision.

Mrs. Hart: The right hon. Gentleman has not quite taken the point I put to him. I was not concerned with the dependent territories; one well understands their position. There is a confusion because of the use of the phrase "Associated States", like the Leeward and Windward Islands, which have a different relationship from that of the dependent territories about which we have never heard throughout the negotiations.

Mr. Noble: I beg the right hon. Lady's pardon if I missed the point she made. If I can get the answer to it before I finish, I will give the answer to her. If not, I will give it to her at the earliest possible moment.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: She will have to sing for it, like the rest of us.

Mr. Noble: If there is not an answer nobody can give it to the right hon. Lady.
The right hon. Lady said, in her usual way of working up to slight bitterness before she sat down, that the Government's good intentions were a lot of hypocrisy. So was some of her speech. She was trying to have a good many things both ways. I remember very well,


when the UNCTAD conference was debated some weeks ago, that she complained strongly that the United Kingdom Government had been less forthcoming than the EEC Governments. She mentioned particularly the French proposals and said that what I had been saying and doing was infinitely inferior. Tonight she has been telling me how terribly badly the French were doing and how much better I am.

Mrs. Hart: On monetary matters.

Mr. Noble: Perhaps on monetary matters, but that was not clear from what she said. As on a number of previous occasions, the right hon. Lady wants to have the argument both ways. This is the prerogative of all ladies, and I do not want to deny it to her. [Interruption.] I should know, having more daughters than most Members.
I should like to take up some of the points the right hon. Lady made about duty quotas and the EEC preference scheme. She may not be aware that all the ceilings in the present scheme will be recalculated after our accession. The new ceilings will reflect the very large amounts of our existing trade with the countries of Asia, all the imports covered by these ceilings will be free of duty, and there will be an annual growth in all these ceilings.
I have now had, through the appropriate messenger, the answer to the question which the right hon. Lady raised earlier. The answer is exactly the same as that which I gave on dependent territories.

Mr. Julius Silverman: What was it?

Mr. Noble: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman wants me to read it out again. He will be able to read it in HANSARD tomorrow.
We had the privilege and pleasure of listening to an excellent speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Selwyn Gummer) about which there has been much favourable comment from both sides of the Committee. I am sorry that I missed part of it because it was essential that I should use some of my single, if not my double, stomach to get a little food during the debate. He made it clear that there

has been a considerable and gratifying change on the part of the Community over the last number of years, and particularly over the last five or six years, in its attitude to helping the developing countries.
10.0 p.m.
I think that it was the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) who kept referring to a mystical date—I am not certain whether it was 1868 or 1886—and say that there had been no change since then. That may apply to certain things, but it does not apply to the attitude of the Community or of this country to providing aid to developing countries. There have been considerable changes, and I do not think that we should try to deny that they are there or to make things more difficult by being rude about the advances that are being made.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Aston (Mr. Julius Silverman) got the point right, because he said that there was a high degree of agreement on both sides of the Committee that what we wanted to do was to give a great deal more aid to the developing countries. I think that that is true of almost the whole of the debate, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West for what I thought was a good contribution.
The hon. Lady the Member for Eton and Slough (Miss Lestor) made a statement about Botswana, Lesotho and Swaziland. I am sorry to have to tell the hon. Lady that she got it entirely and absolutely wrong, because all three have been offered association under Protocol 22 of the Act of Accession, as has the remainder of Commonwealth Africa.
It is true that the Protocol refers to the need to find adequate solutions to the question of origin rules, but the reason for this is to achieve precisely what the hon. Lady wants, which is to ensure that South African goods are not diverted through these countries to get the benefit of preferential access to the EEC. That is the situation as it is today, not that which she described to the Committee.
The hon. Lady said—and I have heard the argument put forward on many occasions in other debates—that she had


a strong feeling of worry, which is shared in varying degrees by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee, about the place of investment in attempts to help build up developing countries. The hon. Lady felt that the situation was unsatisfactory, and she quoted the late Chairman of ICI who was putting up a perfectly good and practical case that if it were a private company that was investing its shareholders' money abroad they should expect to get reasonable terms for the money that was invested. That is sensible and right.
My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, Langstone (Mr. Ian Lloyd), who has a good deal of experience in this matter, made an excellent speech explaining the benefits which can come from investment, and very often do, if it is wisely done, and if it is done in the way that is wanted by a large number of developing countries, in consultation with their Governments in the spheres in which they want investment for one reason or the other.
It is, I think, doing a disservice to trying to help the development of many of these countries for someone to go round saying that all investment is wicked and it is particularly wicked if it makes a profit. It may be immoral, as the hon. Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Deakins) said, to have a feeling that one has to make money before one can give more to other countries, but at least he is safe. There will be no charge of immorality against any of his right hon. Friends for the period when they were running the country.
I think that I have answered the main points. I conclude by saying clearly and categorically, as I have on many other occasions, that we have every intention, and probably a great likelihood of success, of increasing our aid to the developing countries, sensibly and wisely, over the next few years. We have complete confidence. It is no use for any hon. Member on the Opposition benches saying, "Why do you have confidence? We do not." We have confidence that European countries are willing and ready to work with us to achieve this.
It is because the Amendment is at fault and because I believe that we shall be able in the EEC to achieve a greater help for the developing countries that I

ask my colleagues to resist the Amendment.

Mr. Shore: My right hon. Friend the Member for Lanark (Mrs. Hart), with her great knowledge and concern on this subject, certainly launched us on a most valuable debate. Our regret is that it has been possible to have this debate only at this stage of our long discussions about entry, and then for only half a day. Our feelings of regret will be shared widely on all sides of the Committee, not least by the surprisingly large number of hon. Members who have participated in the debate. This matter is of very great concern. I shall say something rather less friendly shortly.
However, I would not wish to take issue with the general expressions of concern that have come from all quarters, except to say that they are certainly justified. This is the subject which I want to develop. I can best do that by referring to three connected matters which are of particular concern to us and which have come out in the debate.
The first matter is the central one affected by the Amendment, that is, the particular method of according preference that we shall pursue in relation to the developing countries if we join the European Communities. The operative words here are contained in Protocol No. 23 of the Treaty of Accession, at page 100. The first few words of this commendably brief protocol state:
The new Member States are authorised to defer until 1 January 1974 the application of the generalised tariff preference scheme applied by the European Economic Community to products originating in the developing countries.
The operative words there, obviously, are
authorised to defer until 1 January 1974".
It is against that background that the Committee must interpret the not altogether clear sentences of the Minister for Trade. I think that I am right in saying that he thinks that there may be some minor scope for talks and possibly minor changes in the Communities' preference scheme, including a recalculation of their quota system and the quotas that will apply. But I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman would dissent from the view that basically he is confirming to the Committee that Britain will be adopting the system, in essence, which is


operating in the European Communities today.

Mr. Noble: As long as the right hon. Gentleman does not put into my mouth words saying that the only changes we are aiming for are very minor and small ones. We may, we hope, get some quite important ones.

Mr. Shore: I am glad to hear that. Perhaps at a later stage I shall say to the Minister for Trade, to make the most obvious point, that in his endeavours to change those parts of the European system of preference he dislikes, he may find an enormous help from this Amendment. He would be in a much more powerful position to get his way in the Six with the benefit of the Amendment.
I have only a few comments to make on the relative merits of the British system of generalised preference compared with the system now operating in the Six and which we have substantially to adopt. It appears to be the general view of those who have studied these matters that the British system is a more open one and a more generous one to the goods of developing countries than is the one in practice on the mainland of Europe. There may well be good reasons for this. They may be the reasons advanced by one hon. Member opposite—that, given the background of the Six and their less open relationship with developing countries in the past, this represents for them an important step forward. I do not seek to decry it on those grounds.
My point is that the consensus is that it is not as good a system as the one which we now operate and which it is proposed that we should abandon. I quote on this one voice which I know carries some weight, particularly with pro-Market Members. I refer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins), who in a speech made not long ago on the whole subject of relationships with the developing world said this of the EEC quota system:
This came into effect last summer and is to last 10 years. It sets tariff-free quotas for each product. The quotas are set so low that they allow a rate of growth of imports less than that at which imports from poor countries have been growing, anyway. Such a scheme if it were applied by all the rich countries would be only a small improvement on the present situation.

That is a fair and accurate statement of what is involved.
I hope that I have established that this in itself in a serious matter, because what we are talking about is the conscious adoption by Britain of a system of trade with the developing world which is known to be less generous than the system which we operate today. This is what has emerged from our discussions so far.
We must now take with this what appears to be a matter of hardly lesser importance. Although under the Treaty of Accession some arrangements are available to Africa and Caribbean countries, those arrangements are not available to any part of the Asian Commonwealth. Subject to negotiation, African and Caribbean countries, and I believe one or two other smaller territories elsewhere, could make various kinds of association agreements with an enlarged Community, whether they be of the Yaoundé type, the Arusha type or more straightforward trade agreements.
If they take the form of ordinary trade agreements, there would not even be an obligation to report to the House of Commons what the content of those trade treaties were. Only if they were treaties which Britain as a Member State signed along with other countries would they be treaties which would be put before the House of Commons in any form under Clause 1. However, that is a recollection from the past.
As to the agreements which are available to African and Caribbean countries, I said that they "could" become available. It is highly unlikely that all, or indeed even a majority, of the countries listed in Annex VI to which the offer is available will wish to avail themselves of the opportunities of concluding either a Yaoundé-type agreement or an Arusha-type agreement.
10.15 p.m.
They may well wish not to do so partly because of the much criticised reverse preference arrangements which have been referred to on both sides of the Committee, arrangements which have been much criticised all over the world. They would be bound to concede these arrangements to the Community but they also may not wish to be brought into what many of the African States certainly


regard as a political and economic sphere of influence which the Community is developing. Nor is it certain that they would be welcome as new members in any Yaoundé- or Arusha-type agreement with the Six. In a sense it works both ways.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Lanark pointed out that there could be certain obstacles in the process of becoming an associated overseas territory, obstacles created by the existing member countries of the OAT convention which clearly have certain interests. Those interests are embodied in the Treaty of Accession, in Protocol No. 22, where it says:
The accession of the new Member States to the Community and the possible extension of the policy of association should not be the source of any weakening in the Community's relations with the Associated African and Malagasy States which are parties to the Convention of Association signed on 29 July 1969.
I am not raising this as a point to which we should strongly object. It is a very natural consideration. These countries are already in a preference arrangement and quite clearly if they felt the degree of access or the conditions that obtain would be diminished by the arrival of new members they would not be very anxious to have those new members in.

Mr. Rippon: The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the offer of either of the two forms of association or a trade agreement is quite firm. There is no question of anyone raising an objection on the Community's side. We do no complain about assurances to the existing members but any renegotiated agreement would apply equally to all the members.

Mr. Shore: I am not disputing the fact that it is on offer. But there would not necessarily be a very warm welcome from all the existing members. There are cerain problems which clearly have to be faced. Many of those to whom the offer is made have very serious reservations, as we know.
We have not been given much information about the thinking of African and Annex VI countries about their own future and about their views of the arrangements which are on offer. But, whatever may be said about the African

Commonwealth countries, the countries of Asia are out in the cold. This is a matter of very great concern, and so it should be. In future they will face far more difficult trading problems than they already experience. No one should doubt just how important the British market is to the countries of Asia, and above all to the Asian Commonwealth. I do not think that every hon. Member is necessarily aware that Britain alone takes virtually twice as much by value of the exports of India as the whole of the Common Market put together. The same is true of Ceylon and Singapore, while in the case of Pakistan, Bangladesh and Hong Kong, the United Kingdom market is equal in terms of exports to the whole of the Six put together. Only Malaya sells more to the Community than she exports to Britain.
The whole of the Asian Commonwealth sells to Britain alone more than it sells to the 185 million people of the EEC. Therefore, it matters enormously to the Asian Commonwealth countries, containing as they do nearly 700 million people, more than three quarters of the whole Commonwealth, that their British market should be preserved. The British market is in many ways as important to the countries of the Asian Commonwealth as the British market in food is to the old Commonwealth countries of Canada, Australia and New Zealand.
In the light of the facts, that we are bound to adopt a less favourable, more restrictive policy on trade if we accept the general preference system of the Community, as we are pledged to do, and that we are a major market for the Asian countries, more important than the Six put together, we begin to see at least the possibility of an immense amount of damage being inflicted, by the arrangements we are entering into, upon millions of people with whom we have been in the closest connection, and to whom many hon. Members on both sides feel a great obligation.
Why is it that Britain can and does provide a more important market for the whole of the Asian Commonwealth than all the countries of the Common Market? We should not necessarily congratulate ourselves too much on the fact. It is partly a matter of history, but history has a great influence on all of us.


Originally, when we built up our overseas empire in Asia, the market there was available above all for British goods, but over the course of time the reverse process of manufacture and selling back to the British market, the Imperial market as it then was, took place. The result is clear. Any Member for a constituency whose workers are involved in textiles need not be told about the two-way nature of the trade relationship that has been built up over the years between Asian countries and this country. About half the textiles used and worn by the people of this country are manufactured by Asians in Asia, whereas in France I doubt whether it is 1 per cent.
We need not allot blame and praise for the situation. It is a fact now built into the structure, habits and trade pattern of this country. It is that pattern, so beneficial to the Asian countries, which is to be disrupted or at least put into great threat by the arrangements we are deliberately, knowing what is involved, engaging in and approving in the Treaty of Accession and the Bill, which gives it form. I regard as one of the worst features of the Treaty the Government's failure to secure the interests of the Asian Commonwealth countries, or even to try to safeguard them. All that the Government got was a perfunctory, indeed, derisory, protocol. It was not even a protocol, in fact, but a joint declaration of intent of three clauses on page 117 of the Treaty.

Mr. Rippon: I am glad the right hon. Gentleman referred to that. It is one of a series of declarations of intent in the Final Act of the Treaty, and a very important one. So far from being perfunctory, it expressly declares the intention of the enlarged Community not merely to safeguard but to extend, as far as lies within our power, trade with the Asian Commonwealth and to examine immediately after accession any problems that may arise. This was reported to the House, and was accepted by the Asian Commonwealth.

Mr. Shore: I am always slightly encouraged by what the right hon. and learned Gentleman tells me but never persuaded. I am bound to listen in these matters to voices which, above all, come from Commonwealth Asian countries. We

all recall the speeches made on behalf of India at Santiago recently and by responsible people in Delhi. On 26th May, The Times reported that the Indian Foreign Trade Ministry estimated that 42 per cent. of India's exports to Britain would be affected unless solutions were found before we accepted these arrangements. The Ministry made the point that it was concerned that there had been no mention in the current negotiations of the comprehensive trade arrangements which, in the 1961–62 negotiations, were very much a feature and were greatly emphasised.

Mr. Rippon: This is partly flowing from the hand we picked up. The right hon. Gentleman will recall that it was the present Leader of the Opposition who said that it was a mistake in the earlier negotiations to try to negotiate commodity by commodity and that we should concentrate the negotiations this time on a minimum of major matters. What we have sought is comprehensive security for the Asian Commonwealth so that these matters can be dealt with as necessary, commodity by commodity.

Mr. Shore: The trouble is that, like so many of the interests that need to be secured—including our own—these arrangements, if they are to be secured at all, will be secured after entry and not before.
I turn to the third and last of the concerns which have been expressed in the debate. This is that in trade, as in aid, the Community's arrangements are focused on African countries, in particular those historically connected with France. They virtually exclude, as does the Community's aid programme, the developing countries of Asia and elsewhere, which have much more numerous populations than the developing countries in Africa.
A central point of the debate has been the question of whether our aid contribution can be expected to increase or decrease or to stay the same if we enter the EEC. There is a simple and common sense approach to this, and I am surprised that it took many hon. Members so long to reach it. But the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Selwyn Gummer) got there in the end. The record of the Six in terms of aid, although not in terms of trade, has been relatively


good in recent years because most of them enjoyed a favourable period in terms of their balance of payments and trade surpluses.
Our own record has not been favourable in recent years because our trading surpluses for a great number of years have been virtually non-existent. I know that this is not wholly an excuse and that some of my hon. Friends would not accept that we should ever allow such a factor in our determination of aid. Thus the whole argument about how much money one can give in aid relates to how much one has.
The argument comes down to simple assertion and wish and hope—faith, hope and Community spirit!—that somehow or other we shall be richer if we join the EEC. But those who argue in that way must explain how we shall be able to pay out more in terms of a genuine overseas aid programme when we shall have to pay £750 million over the next five years. By the end of this decade, we shall certainly be paying out 1 per cent. of our gross national income—we shall reach that target—but we shall not be paying it to the developing countries. We shall be paying it under the treaties and agreements in order to meet the burdens of the Community.
10.30 p.m.
That is where the 1 per cent. will go and we have now to be convinced that

we can actually pay the annual contribution to Europe and pay more to the developing countries. I say that there is not a shred of evidence to suggest that we shall be in such a healthy position. I wish it were true, but it is no good saying to us that people can just assume that this will be so, particularly when it comes on top of the immense damage being deliberately inflicted upon the trade of many of the poorer Commonwealth countries in Asia and elsewhere.

The Government should accept this Amendment. We are always being told that once we are in there are so many things they will be able to do, agreements that will not be allowed to be cemented and matters that will be shaped by us, because they will report back before final decisions are made, so that we will be able to interpose the will of the Commons. I say that here is a splendid opportunity. It is not so difficult this time, because by voting for the Amendment they would do what they would no doubt like to be able to do after entry, that is to change what they know to be a bad system of trade for a better and a more generous system for the developing countries.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:

The Committee divided: Ayes 184, Noes 195.

Division No. 236.]
AYES
[10.32 p.m


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Dalyell, Tam
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Davidson, Arthur
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Armstrong, Ernest
Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)


Ashley, Jack
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Hamling, William


Atkinson Norman
Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Deakins, Eric
Hardy, Peter


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Harper, Joseph


Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)
Dempsey, James
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Doig, Peter
Horam, John


Bidwell, Sydney
Dormand, J. D.
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Biffen, John
Duffy, A. E. P.
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)


Bishop, E. S.
Dunn, James A.
Hughes, Mark (Durham)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Dunnett, Jack
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Eadle, Alex
Janner, Greville


Body, Richard
Edelman, Maurice
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Booth, Albert
Ellis, Tom
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
English, Michael
John, Brynmor


Buchan, Norman
Evans, Fred
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Ewing, Henry
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Faulds, Andrew
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)


Carmichael, Neil
Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham, Ladywood)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Jones, Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn (W.Ham,S.)


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)


Cohen, Stanley
Foot, Michael
Judd, Frank


Coleman, Donald
Freeson, Reginald
Kaufman, Gerald


Concannon, J. D.
Gilbert, Dr. John
Kinnock, Neil


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)
Lambie, David


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Lamborn, Harry


Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)





Lamond, James
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Sillars, James


Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Murray, Ronald King
Silverman, Julius


Leonard, Dick
Oakes, Gordon
Skinner, Dennis


Lestor, Miss Joan
Ogden, Eric
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
O'Halloran, Michael
Spearing, Nigel


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
O'Malley, Brian
Spriggs, Leslie


Lipton, Marcus
Orbach, Maurice
Stallard, A. W.


Lomas, Kenneth
Orme, Stanley
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Loughlin, Charles
Oswald, Thomas
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Paisley, Rev. Ian
Strang, Gavin


Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Taverne, Dick


Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


McBride, Neil
Pendry, Tom
Tinn, James


McElhone, Frank
Pentland, Norman
Torney, Tom


Mackenzie, Gregor
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin


Mackie, John
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.
Urwin, T. W.


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Prescott, John
Varley, Eric G.


McNamara, J. Kevin
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Wainwright, Edwin


Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Probert, Arthur
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Marks, Kenneth
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Marquand, David
Rhodes, Geoffrey
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Marshall, Dr. Edmund
Roberts, Rt.Hn.Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Weitzman, David


Marten, Neil
Roderick, CaerwynE. (Br'c'n &amp; R'dnor)
Wellbeloved, James


Meacher, Michael
Roper, John
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Mendelson, John
Rowlands, Ted
Whitlock, William


Millan, Bruce
Russell, Sir Ronald
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Milne, Edward
Sandelson, Neville
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Woof, Robert


Moate, Roger
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)



Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Short, Rt.Hn.Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Mr. Walter Harrison and


Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Mr. John Golding.




NOES


Adley, Robert
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
King, Tom (Bridgwater)


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Kinsey, J. R.


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Fookes, Miss Janet
Kirk, Peter


Astor, John
Fortescue, Tim
Knight, Mrs. Jill


Atkins, Humphrey
Fowler, Norman
Knox, David


Awdry, Daniel
Fox, Marcus
Lambton, Lord


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Fry, Peter
Lamont, Norman


Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord
Gibson-Watt, David
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Glyn, Dr. Alan
Le Marchant, Spencer


Bennett, Sir Frederick (Torquay)
Goodhew, Victor
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)


Benyon, W.
Gower, Raymond
Longden, Sir Gilbert


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Luce, R. N.


Biggs-Davison, John
Green, Alan
MacArthur, Ian


Blaker, Peter
Grieve, Percy
McLaren, Martin


Boscawen, Robert
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy


Bowden, Andrew
Grylls, Michael
Mather, Carol


Bray, Ronald
Gummer, J. Selwyn
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Mawby, Ray


Burden, F. A.
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Carlisle, Mark
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Hannan, John (Exeter)
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)


Channon, Paul
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Miscampbell, Norman


Chapman, Sydney
Haselhurst, Alan
Mitchell, Lt.-Col.C. (Aberdeenshire,W)


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Hastings, Stephen
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Churchill, W. S.
Havers, Michael
Money, Ernle


Clegg, Walter

Monks, Mrs. Connie


Cockeram, Eric
Hawkins, Paul
Monro, Hector


Coombs Derek
Higgins, Terence L



Cooper, A. E.
Hiley, Joseph
Montgomery, Fergus


Cormack, Patrick
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
More, Jasper


Costain, A. P.
Holland, Philip
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)


Crowder, F. P.
Holt, Miss Mary
Morrison, Charles


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen.James
Hordern, Peter
Mudd, David


Dean, Paul
Hornsby-Smith, Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia
Murton, Oscar


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Neave, Airey


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Iremonger, T. L.
Normanton, Tom


Dykes, Hugh
Jessel, Toby
Nott, John


Eden, Sir John
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Osborn, John


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Jopling, Michael
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)


Eyre, Reginald
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Parkinson, Cecil


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Kershaw, Anthony
Peel, John


Fidler, Michael
Kimball, Marcus
Percival, Ian







Pike, Miss Mervyn
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Price, David (Eastleigh)
Sharples, Richard
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Proudfoot, Wilfred
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp;' Whitby)
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Shelton, William (Clapham)
Tugendhat, Christopher


Quennell, Miss J. M.
Simeons, Charles
Waddington, David


Raison, Timothy
Sinclair, Sir George
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Skeet, T. H. H.
Wall, Patrick


Redmond, Robert
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)
Ward, Dame Irene


Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Soref, Harold
Warren, Kenneth


Rees, Peter (Dover)
Speed, Keith
Weatherill, Bernard


Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Spence, John
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Stainton, Keith
Wilkinson, John


Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Stanbrook, Ivor
Winterton, Nicholas


Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Steel, David
Worsley, Marcus


Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Beiper)
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)
Younger, Hn. George


Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Stokes, John



Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Rost, Peter
Temple, John M.
Mr. Hamish Gray and


St. John-Stevas, Norman
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)
Mr. Kenneth Clarke.

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke: I beg to move Amendment No. 190, in page 7, line 44, leave out from 'action' to 'and' in line 45.

The First Deputy Chairman: It will be for the convenience of the Committee to take with it the following Amendments: No. 191, in page 8, line 7, leave out 'may' and insert 'shall'.

No. 192, in page 8, line 10, leave out 'or practice'.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: The three Amendments are for the purpose of probing the drafting of the Bill, in particular of subsection (5) which deals with the dispensing power. Anyone with a sense of history will know that the dispensing power of the Government must be closely scrutinised.
Here, the Secretary of State is given a dispensing power to relieve from import duties in certain circumstances. I am questioning the circumstance in subsection (6), namely, whether the Secretary of State, that is to say the Executive, should be allowed to dispense from import duties—
whether or not for conformity with Community obligations".
My question is whether he should have this power of dispensation by regulation if it is not for conformity with Community obligations. I can understand if it is for conformity with Community obligations. Under the principle of the Bill, which I greatly support, he must be allowed this power; that is part of the bargain. But if it is not for conformity with Community obligations, why should he be allowed by mere regulation to dispense from import duties?
10.45 p.m.
That is not a purely theoretical question. As hon. Members who have been attending our night classes will know, the ordinary citizen has a right of access to the courts for breach of Community obligations. I instance, for example, the case of a manufacturer of some manufactured goods in the United Kingdom who finds that the Secretary of State has, by the exercise of dispensing power, not for conformity of obligations, lowered the tariff. He would therefore have a right of access to the courts. He could say that this was in conflict with Community

obligations and the courts would be obliged, under the previous Clauses of the Bill, which we have discussed, to grant him relief.
They would say that this lowering of the tariffs was not for conformity of Community obligations, and so was in breach of Community obligations, and he, whose business was being jeopardised by the lowering of the tariffs against third nations, would have a right of action in the courts.
Therefore, I ask whether it is either necessary or desirable, or even in consonance with our Community obligations, which we have signed, to put the words
whether or not for conformity with Community obligations
in subsection (6).
I shall be very brief because these were probing Amendments, put down long before the timetable and before the matter became one of great principle, long before one realised that the Committee stage was quite what it has turned out to be.
The second Amendment is on subsection (7) which deals with the impact of Community law on our own law. As a loyal subscriber to the view that we should join the Community, the word "may" in line 7 of page 8 to me sticks out rather like a sore thumb because, as so often here, one feels, as a loyal subscriber, that it should be "shall" and that we should, rather than having a discretion in the matter, give effect as (7)(a) prescribes:
in accordance with such arrangements as they may direct or by regulations prescribe, to any Community requirement …
We should do it. We have no discretion, and I should like to know why "shall" is not there.
The force of this argument is somewhat diminished by the next words after "Community requirement" which are the subject of my third Amendment. It is not merely "Community requirement" but "or practice". I should like to ask my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) what "practice" means there. I can well understand that if it is a Community


requirement, we have a duty to make arrangements,
to give effect, in accordance with such arrangements as they may direct or by regulations prescribe, to any Community requirement",
but when we come to "or practice" that word has not yet appeared in our discussions. This is an important word. It is not an Act, not a regulation, not a directive, not in those words we have hitherto discussed, but something beyond that.
If I move my second Amendment which requires us to do these things, I shall do so only on the understanding that "or practice" is removed because, as I have said over and over again, I do not believe in giving more than we have to give. I do not believe, particularly, in the House giving more to the executive than we have to give. The word "practice" raises my hackles and I wish to know what it comprises. If it comprises as much as I think, I should not like to move my second Amendment, which obliges the Government to embrace that practice.

Mr. Noble: I will try to help my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) on this group of Amendments. I hope to be able to show him that they are not necessary and that the words that he seeks to alter are not as dangerous as he fears.
Amendment No. 190 apparently seeks to place an undesirable limitation on our power to adjust the provisions for relieving United Kingdom trade and industry from the burden of customs duties. Member States have their various policies and procedures for reliefs from duty. Our own provisions are set out in Part II of the Import Duties Act. They include matters such as relief from duty on imported materials required by our exporters and relief on imports for non-commercial, educational and research purposes.
For a customs union to be an effective reality, there must clearly be a broad identity of policy and practice. The Community is engaged in the continuing development of harmonised policies, and we as members will participate in this process. But harmonisation is not yet complete and, as members, naturally we expect to gain further knowledge and experience of the policies and practices

adopted and permitted elsewhere in the Community. We may well find that in areas where a measure of national discretion is permitted, we may need to adjust our own policies and practices if our own industries are not to be at a disadvantage compared with their competitors.
In the nature of the case, clearly I cannot now give precise examples of when and how this power should be used to match the practices of other members. But it is sensible to exercise prudent forethought now, giving ourselves elbow room to look after our own interests and to do so rapidly by a standing power to make regulations should the need arise.
The Amendment proposes to delete the words which make it clear that the practices in other member States of which we shall wish to take account are not confined to practices which other members have adopted in order to conform to a Community obligation. They may simply be practices which are not ruled out by the obligations of membership. Even if the Amendment were accepted, there would still be nothing in the subsection to prevent our taking account of such non-obligatory practices. It is in our interests to do so, and desirable that we retain these words which put the scope of the power beyond doubt.
If my hon. and learned Friend is concerned that the power should not be used to make regulations in conflict with Community obligations, there is no cause for the Amendment. Once there were any obligatory Community instruments on the subject, they would override any national arrangements or regulations.
Parliamentary control over regulations made under this power is the same as for other regulations made under the Bill, namely, negative procedure, unless a draft has been approved by Resolution of each House.
I come to Amendment No. 191. I understand my hon. and learned Friend's concern with the matters in this and similar Amendments that he has tabled. It was foreshadowed by the points which my hon. and learned Friend raised during the Second Reading debate, and which the Chancellor of the Duchy dealt with on 17th February at column 659. My hon. and learned Friend's intention is to


seek to clarify, for the benefit of Parliament, the courts and the public, what he understands to be the nature of certain of our obligations as a member of the European Economic Community. I note that Amendment No. 192 appears to have a similar intention. I hope that I shall be able to show, however laudable the intention, that such an amendment to this part of Clause 5 is inappropriate and unnecessary.
Clause 5(7) empowers the Commissioners of Customs and Excise to give practical effect in the United Kingdom to certain of our obligations as a member of the Customs Union of the Community. It is a provision which is geared to the practical and administrative needs of membership of that Customs Union. The nature of our obligations is not in question: these are set out in the Treaties and in certain Community legislation, and by virtue of Part I of the Bill these obligations are recognised in United Kingdom law. The fact that "may" is used instead of "shall" in no way implies a derogation from those obligations.

[SIR ROBERT GRANT-FERRIS in the Chair]

Clause 5(7) is concerned principally with the manner in which certain of our customs obligations are to be met. The effect of accepting the Amendment would be akin to that described by the Chancellor of the Duchy when he touched on a similar point in connection with Clause 2(2) on 17th February, 1972, when he said:
If we had included in Clause 2(2)—which enables delegated legislation to be made—the word 'shall', it would have had the effect of giving the Government of this country no discretion as to the manner in which they responded to an indirect Community obligation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th February, 1972; Vol. 830, c. 659.]

In the context of Clause 5(7)(a), the effect would be to require the Commissioners to implement certain of their obligations, for example, the Community Transit System, either by issuing directions or by making regulations. This would rule out administrative action under existing powers, principally the Customs and Excise Act, 1952.

Another effect would be to require the Commissioners to follow every Community practice, even if that practice were wholly inappropriate to the circumstances

of this country and were not intended by the Community to be compulsory but to be an optional measure to be applied only where appropriate.

This, in the detailed practical sphere of Customs procedures and control, would be both unwise and inflexible. It should not be overlooked that the Act of 1952 is and will remain for the foreseeable future the main statutory basis for the basis for the action of the Commissioners, and that they should where appropriate be free to implement Community obligations in accordance with its provisions. If this Amendment were to be accepted, any action which the Commissioners could take would be limited in the way I have described. I therefore invite the Committee to reject the Amendment.

Amendment No. 192 is one of several Amendments tabled by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen to demonstrate the precise extent of our Community obligations. I can understand the reasons which have no doubt prompted my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen to propose such an Amendment, but in this case I would ask the Committee to consider more carefully the nature of the Customs Union which we shall be joining as a member of the European Economic Community.

The Customs provisions in the Bill reflect the reality of joining that Customs union: they are truly the legal nuts and bolts. We are here concerned with the day-to-day practicalities of the working Customs Union, and Clause 5(7) is drafted to meet that situation.

There are certain Community practices—it should be clearly understood that "practice" here means a Community practice—which, while they are not laid down in detail in Community law, member States may none the less implement by—

It being Eleven o'clock The Chairman proceeded, pursuant to Order [2nd May], to put forthwith the Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.

Amendment negatived.

Question put, That the Clause stand part of the Bill: —

The Committee divided: Ayes 196, Noes 184.

Division No. 237.]
AYES
[11.0 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Osborn, John


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)


Astor, John
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Pardoe, John


Atkins, Humphrey
Haselhurst, Alan
Parkinson, Cecil


Awdry, Daniel
Hastings, Stephen
Peel, John


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Havers, Michael
Percival, Ian


Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord
Hawkins, Paul
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Higgins, Terence L.
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Hiley, Joseph
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Benyon, W.
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Holland, Philip
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Biggs-Davison, John
Holt, Miss Mary
Raison, Timothy


Blaker, Peter
Hordern, Peter
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Boscawen, Hn. Robert
Hornsby-Smith, Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia
Redmond, Robert


Bowden, Andrew
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Bray, Ronald
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Rees, Peter (Dover)


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Iremonger, T. L.
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Burden, F. A.
Jessel, Toby
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Carlisle, Mark
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)


Channon, Paul
Jopling, Michael
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Chapman, Sydney
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Churchill, W. S.
Kershaw, Anthony
Rost, peter


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Kimball, Marcus
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Cockeram, Eric
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.


Coombs, Derek
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Sharples, Richard


Cooper, A. E.
Kinsey, J. R.
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Cormack, Patrick
Kirk, Peter
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Costain, A. P.
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Simeons, Charles


Crowder, F. P.
Knox, David
Sinclair, Sir George


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. James
Lambton, Lord
Skeet, T. H. H.


Dean, Paul
Lamont, Norman
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Soref, Harold


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Le Merchant, Spencer
Speed, Keith


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Spence, John


Dykes, Hugh
Longden, Sir Gilbert
Stainton, Keith


Eden, Sir John
Luce, R. N.
Stanbrook, Ivor


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
McArthur, Ian
Steel, David


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
McLaren, Martin
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)


Elliott, R.W. (N'c'lte-upon-Tyne,N.)
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)


Eyre, Reginald
Mather, Carol
Stokes, John


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Fidler, Michael
Mawby, Ray
Temple, John M.


Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Thomas, John (Stradling (Monmouth)


Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Fookes, Miss Janet
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Traftord, Dr. Anthony


Fortescue, Tim
Miscampbell, Norman
Tugendhat, Christopher


Fowler, Norman
Mitchell, Lt.-Col.C. (Aberdeenshire,W)
Waddington, David


Fox, Marcus
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Fry, Peter
Money, Ernle
Wall, Patrick


Gibson-Watt, David
Monks, Mrs. Connie
Ward, Dame Irene


Glyn, Dr. Alan
Monro, Hector
Warren, Kenneth


Goodhew, Victor
Montgomery, Fergus
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Gower, Raymond
More, Jasper
Wilkinson, John


Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Winterton, Nicholas


Gray, Hamish
Morrison, Charles
Worsley, Marcus


Green, Alan
Mudd, David
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Grieve, Percy
Murton, Oscar
Younger, Hn. George


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Neave, Airey



Grylls, Michael
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Gummer, J. Selwyn
Normanton, Tom
Mr. Bernard Weatherill and


Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Nott, John
Mr. Walter Clegg.




NOES


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Blenkinsop, Arthur
Coleman, Donald


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Body, Richard
Concannon, J. D.


Ashley, Jack
Booth, Albert
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony


Atkinson, Norman
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Buchan, Norman
Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Dalyell, Tam


Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)
Carmichael, Neil
Davidson, Arthur


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)


Bidwell, Sydney
Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Davies, Ifor (Gower)


Bitten, John
Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)


Bishop, E. S.
Cohen, Stanley
Deakins, Eric







Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Lambie, David
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.


Dempsey, James
Lamborn, Harry
Prescott, John


Doig, Peter
Lamond, James
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Dorman, J. D.
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Probert, Arthur


Duffy, A. E. P.
Leonard, Dick
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Dunn, James A.
Lestor, Miss Joan
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Dunnett, Jack
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Roberts, Rt.Hn.Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Eadie, Alex
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Roderick, CaerwynE.(Br'c'n &amp; R'dnor)


Edelman, Maurice
Lipton, Marcus
Roper, John


Ellis, Tom
Lomas, Kenneth
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


English, Michael
Loughlin, Charles
Rowlands, Ted


Evans, Fred
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Russell, Sir Ronald


Ewing, Harry
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Sandelson, Neville


Faulds, Andrew
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Fisher, Mrs. Doris(B'ham,Ladywood)
McBride, Neil
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
McElhone, Frank
Short,Rt.Hn.Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Mackenzie, Gregor
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington
Mackie, John
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Foot, Michael
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Sillars, James


Freeson, Reginald
McNamara, J. Kevin
Silverman, Julius


Gilbert, Dr. John
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Skinner, Dennis


Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)
Marks, Kenneth
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Marquand, David
Spearing, Nigel


Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Marshall, Dr. Edmund
Spriggs, Leslie


Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Marten, Neil
Stallard, A. W.


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Meacher, Michael
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Hamling, William
Mendelson, John
Strang, Gavin


Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Millan, Bruce
Taverne, Dick


Hardy, Peter
Milne, Edward
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Harper, Joseph
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)
Tinn, James


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Moate, Roger
Torney, Tom


Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Molyneaux, James
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin


Horam, John
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Urwin, T. W.


Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Varley, Eric G.


Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Wainwright, Edwin


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Murray, Ronald King
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Janner, Greville
Oakes, Gordon
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Ogden, Eric
Weitzman, David


John, Brynmor
O'Halloran, Michael
Wellbeloved, James


Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
O'Malley, Brian
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Orbach, Maurice
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Orme, Stanley
Whitlock, William


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Oswald, Thomas
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)
Paisley, Rev. Ian
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Woof, Robert


Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred



Judd, Frank
Pendry, Tom
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Kaufman, Gerald
Pentland, Norman
Mr. Ernest Armstrong and


Kinnock, Neil
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Mr. John Golding

Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

It being after Eleven o'clock The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Pro-

gress and ask leave to sit again, pursuant to Order [2nd May].

Committee report Progress; to sit again to-morrow.

Orders of the Day — UNITED REFORMED CHURCH BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Order for consideration, as amended, read.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): Before calling on the hon. Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon) to move, "That the Bill, as amended, be now considered," I should inform the House that Mr. Speaker has not selected the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley):
That the Bill be considered upon this day six months.
The substance of the new Clause and of the Amendments to the Preamble to the Bill may be discussed on the Question, "That the Bill, as amended, be now considered". If that Question is agreed to, the new Clause and the Amendments may then be moved formally and divided upon if required.

The new Clause is:

POWER TO SECEDE BY UNITING CHURCHES

(1) A uniting church may if so authorised by not less than three-fourths of those present and voting at a meeting of the members thereof specially convened for the purpose give twelve months notice of its intention to consider at a further special church meeting a resolution to secede.
(2) Any notice given under the preceding subsection shall be transmitted forthwith to the clerk with a full statement of the grounds upon which secession is to be considered.
(3) A uniting church which has given notice of intention to consider a resolution to secede shall provide written answers to any questions addressed to it by any court of the United Reformed Church and shall consider any written statement and or oral representations made to it by any officer of the United Reformed Church.
(4) A uniting church, having complied with all the foregoing subsections of this section, may if so authorised by not less than three-fourths of those present and voting at a meeting of the members thereof specially convened for the purpose resolve to secede from the United Reformed Church. Any such resolution shall take effect twelve months after the date upon which it was passed unless the Moderator shall appoint an earlier day.
(5) A uniting church which has passed a resolution to secede by virtue of the last preceding subsection may apply to the commissioners for an order in respect of the property used by and any investment belonging to that

uniting church. Subsections (3) and (4) of section 15 of this Act shall apply to such property and to any such investment.
(6) This section shall extend to a non-uniting church admitted under section 28 of this Act as it applies to a uniting church.

The Amendments to the Preamble are as follows: In page 2, line 30, leave out from 'Church' to 'have" in line 32.

In line 33, leave out 'the achievement of that end' and insert:
'a union of their respective Churches or denominations'.

Mr. R. J. Maxwell-Hyslop: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I ask you to clear up any ambiguity about the hour to which the debate may go? Is there a terminal hour? If there is, may we be told what it is?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: As I understand it, there can be three hours of debate on the consideration of the Bill, as amended, and another hour on the new Clause and Amendments to which I have referred.

11.13 p.m.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: I beg to move, That the Bill, as amended, be now considered.
The Bill is one of the most historic Measures in the history of the Christian churches in this country. For the first time since the Reformation two Christian denominations have agreed to joint together in a scheme of union which has been accepted by all the councils of their respective churches by more than the 75 per cent. majority that was required. Therefore, for the first time in the 60 years that the churches have been talking about union we have an effective scheme which is overwhelmingly supported by the Christians in those denominations. For that reason I commend the Bill to the House and feel deeply privileged at being asked to do so.
I put the Bill before the House as a Methodist without detailed knowledge of the practices of Congregationalists or Presbyterians. If detailed issues are raised during the debate my hon. Friend the Member for Farnworth (Mr. Roper) will seek to reply to them. I want to deal with the general issue and then say something about the right and the wisdom of Parliament interfering in the right of Christian churches to come together if they so freely desire.
I begin by stating my belief about Christian unity. One of the three Petitioners against the Bill before the Committee of the House was the father of the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Spearing), in whose name there stands on the Order Paper a new Clause, which would be a substantial amendment to the Bill. In the course of a letter to The Guardianthis week, it was said by the hon. Member that the Bill was concerned only with property issues and that there was nothing of great controversy in the discussion that would take place tonight. That was not the view of his father when his father put forward a Petition against the Bill.
The second paragraph of the Petition reads thus:
To me, Christian history reveals two continuous processes. One process consolidates for increasing authority. The other process separates for increasing freedom. Such is the nature of Christianity and such is the diversity among believers that both processes must continue.
For that reason, he put forward the new Clause which his son is to move.
We are, therefore, at the very kernel in considering the new Clause and the issue which lies at the root of this union of the two churches. Always, throughout Christian history, there has been conflict whether Christianity is a matter of individual response to God or the reflection of that through the organisation of the church in which the individual is joined together with fellow Christians. The question of how the church should speak on faith and order has been resolved by different denominations in different ways—from those who believe in authority coming down from the top to those who believe, like the Society of Friends, in the measure of authority that stems from one's personal conviction.
The Congregational Church came to the conclusion that the right structure was that every individual Congregational church was autonomous in decisions about faith and order. For that reason, they have kept that distinctive ethos to the present day, even though, in recent years, over a quarter of a century or so, they have come together for service purposes where they thought that a Congregational Union was helpful. But the Congregational Union as such did not have power to bind the individual congregations.
The Presbyterian Church was organised in a different way. Rather like many other dissenting churches, such as the Methodist and Baptist Churches, it believed in a democratic process up from the ground roots, electing the various councillors to the council at the top. But when the council at the top took a decision by a majority, it was binding on all churches and members of the church.
When these two churches decided to come together in a spirit of wider Christian unity, there were difficulties in resolving these historic traditional differences between the two. There will always be difficulties whenever Christian churches of any denomination want to come together in wider unity, and some concession has to be made by the denominations. There are those who say that for that reason we should not look for Christian unity in the form of organicunion but we should look for it in each Christian being in fellowship with his fellow Christian across the denominational boundaries.
A great deal has been done in that respect in the last 25 years. But all churches, of whatever denomination, have found that that has limited use, because there are always difficulties about the resolution of problems about property, problems about faith, and problems about doctrine.
We in the Methodist Church have been engaged for some time, in consultation with the Anglicans, on how to resolve our historic differences. One of the differences has been that certain Anglicans took the view that Methodists could not join in Holy Communion in an Anglican Church. It is no good saying that the fellowship across the denominational boundaries could overcome that, because the historic commitment of the Anglican Church, through the authority of the bishop, meant that it was impossible to do it in that way. We had to come together in some kind of union.
So with this. What the congregationalists agreed to do was to come into a United Reformed Church where the organisational structure would be, as in the Presbyterian Church, from the ground roots up to the General Assembly at the top, with the General Assembly's decision being binding on all the churches and all members of the church. The Presbyterians agreed to give up their distinctive


ethos of an ordained leader who was not a clergyman: he was elected, but elected as an elder for life; he had a particular status in the Presbyterian Church which was perhaps unique to the Presbyterian background.
What the Presbyterians have agreed to do with the new church is that the elder will be elected for only a limited period, to be decided upon by the church. That was that church's contribution to the cause of wider Christian unity.
Therefore, they came together, after 10 years of discussion, going through all the councils of the churches, to talk this over with the steering group that was working for this union, reporting back at intervals over the 10 years and getting affirmative resolutions from each of the councils of the churches, until in the end it had to be put to all the churches.
What they decided to do was this. Every council of the Church had to vote for the union by at least 75.per cent. That was also the commitment of the Anglican-Methodist congregations. Unfortunately, the Synod of the Anglican Church could not manage 75 per cent. All we required was two votes—one in the Methodist Conference and one in the Church Synod. What this required was a vote in the Presbyterian General Assembly which was binding, as always, on the member churches, with the exception that in this scheme any individual Presbyterian church could opt to go out, but then it would need 75 per cent. to go out of the scheme. Two Presbyterian churches agreed to do that.
In the Congregational Church, however, not only had the Congregational Union to vote for membership by 75 per cent., but every regional union had to vote for membership by 75 per cent. Fundamentally, because of the distinctive structure of the Congregational Church, every Congregational church had to vote for union by 75 per cent. To make it even more difficult, 66 per cent. of the churches had to vote for union before union could go through. That was a hurdle that no other test of union has ever had to survive. This one survived it.
The union survived the test in this way. There were 1,668 churches in the Congregational Church which voted for union. They comprised 136,856 members. This represented 73·7 per cent. of the

churches. It represented 82·2 per cent. of the enrolled membership.
The House will recognise that, in whatever representative council we care to think of, whether it is a trade union group or any other, one does not get 100 per cent. of the membership at the meeting to vote. I do not suggest that that is what happened in this case. What happened was that the number who turned up as a proportion of the total membership was about 38 per cent. Of those who turned up to vote the result in the individual churches was as I have indicated.
Of the other churches, 465 churches in the Congregational Union decided they could not accept, or did not achieve, the necessary 75 per cent vote. They represented about 25 per cent. of the membership. The proportion of the enrolled membership which voted there was just the same. [An HON. MEMBER: "Very small."] The hon. Members says it was very small, but that was how many of the churches took their decisions. Every decision of a Congregational church is binding upon its members by whatever the majority of the members who are there to vote. It was never intended and never suggested at any stage of the scheme that there had to be a 100 per cent. turnout or any specific percentage turnout. It was only said that the church should make its decision in the way it always had by the councils of the church voting in the usual way and that is what happened.
The overwhelming majority of the churches representing the overwhelming majority of the enrolled membership voted for union. Of the 465 that did not or could not achieve the necessary 75 per cent. majority, 89 have since voted and have achieved that majority and will come in. We now have the situation where hon. Members are moving an Amendment to try to take away the distinctive ethos of the new Church.
The Amendment standing in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Acton would allow any church which was formerly a Congregational church to secede from the new union at any time if it voted twice in the course of a twelve months to leave. That sounds reasonable enough until one examines the nature of the new creature that is being proposed in the scheme. The scheme is for a new Church. Any Congregational church that


decided to opt out or any Presbyterian church which decided it could not go in—and there were two—could leave with all their property and church buildings.
The Amendment refers only to those churches which have decided to join the union by a three-quarters majority and which at some stage in the union decide they want to leave it.
My hon. Friend as a Congregationalist asks why the individual church should not have the right to make that decision. The answer is because it is no longer a Congregationalist church. It is a United Reformed church and it is subject to the new governance of the Church which has been introduced as a result of the scheme approved by the overwhelming majority of the adherents in both Churches.
Therefore if any church finds itself unhappy in the new union and cannot live with it and wants to leave, the General Assembly is bound to consider that situation sympathetically. Dr. Huxtable said on behalf of the Congregationalist Church that it was likely that if a case were as important as that, it would be reviewed sympathetically and the church would probably be allowed to leave. But the decision is one for the Church as a whole in the new structure. It is in the same position as the Presbyterians, Methodists and Baptists are now in. The only difficulty comes because of the Congregationalists' ethos. That has been surrendered in the new Church.
There is a technical difficulty about the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Acton which illustrates that. The Bill makes it plain that from the time when the new Church comes into being the old churches disappear. There is no longer such a thing as a uniting church, which is the description in the Bill for an old Congregationalist church that decided to come in. From the moment when the new Church comes into effect, by Clause 5(3)(g) and (h) the uniting church and the uniting congregation disappear.
The Amendment defers to what would be the rôle of a uniting church. There will be no such thing, and therefore strictly speaking it is technically a void Amendment. I do not raise any issue about technicality, but only mention that to illustrate that the church is a new

creature and that therefore we cannot go on with the old ideas of Congregationalism or the old ideas of Presbyterianism.
Therefore, the sponsors of the Bill cannot accept the Amendment. If passed, it would wreck the scheme, because it would have to go back to the churches for them to consider the position. That would put back the scheme for several years until the matter came back again through the councils. As all the churches knew about the scheme and about the Bill, it is not to be expected that they would vote differently from the way in which they voted in the past. All that would happen is that we should delay this first scheme of Christian union that much more.
The Bill deals not with the organisation of the new Church but only with what happens to the old trusts. It must come to the House in order that the old trusts can be dealt with. But we must look at the wider issue. Is it right for Parliament to interpose its judgment about what is the right way forward for Christian churches which in their own councils have decided as they thought right what they should do?
The hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) and I are the only two hon. Members who are members of the British Council of Churches. There I have met many Anglicans who have been anxiously looking for ways to reform their Church. When I try to encourage them in that direction I always have thrown in my teeth the fact that the 1928 Prayer Book was thrown out by the House. That was a traumatic experience for the Anglican Church from which it has never recovered. It is always arising in discussion that the House of Commons is a body which will interpose its judgment about what it thinks right despite what the Church has said.
Let us lay that ghost tonight for ever. The House does not wish to interfere with the freedom of worship. If the churches decide upon their own course in their own way, it is not right for us to intervene. Still less, I say in sorrow, do I think it right for my hon. Friend the Member for Acton to intervene. He went before his own congregation and urged the course which is in his Amendment, against the union. As I understand it from the secretary of his church,


everybody in the church voted for union except him. Now he urges upon the House the same course as he urged before. We cannot accept it. It is impossible for the churches to live in that kind of situation, where they are subject to the whims of a dissident who happens to be a Member of this House. That is not what we are here for, and I ask the House to reject the Amendment if it is put to the vote, and to pass this Bill.

11.35 p.m.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: I begin by saying how glad I am that the House is reasonably full and that it is taking an interest in this issue. I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will stay and vote, whichever way that may be. I say that because I believe that this House tonight can show that in dealing with these matters—and there may be others of this sort which we shall have to face in the next 10 years—it can lay the ghost of the Prayer Book debates which, I agree, was necessarily a critical debate.
I want to take up at once the challenge made to my right to appear here and move the sort of Amendment I propose. It is not designed as a wrecking Amendment. I will explain to the House why I believe this Bill needs some safeguards and some extra provisions. I have been approached by people within my own denomination who are unhappy about the terms of the Bill and who have been unhappy about the way in which certain events have come about. Parliament has a right to judge whether the Bill shall go through as it is; it also has a right, in its legal capacity, to decide whether the Bill requires safeguards. In such circumstances, it would be wrong for me to say that I can take no part in this because I just happen to have a particular personal interest, which my hon. Friend has outlined and which I confess at once.
I have no wish to stop the Bill from going through. I believe it would be quite wrong for me to do so because my own church wishes it to go through, as my hon. Friend has said. The point at issue is under what conditions the Parliament of this country believes certain charitable trusts can be, in effect, reversed. What sort of conditions does it require for a wholesale reversal of these

trusts? Have the conditions been met? These are the questions at issue.
It is my case that by and large this House should require the sort of safeguards I propose in the Amendment—and I take my hon. Friend's point about the technicalities. I concede at once that a Parliamentary Committee has looked at a similar request because it included all the churches and not just ex-Congregational ones.
The whole history of this House and of Congregationalism has been about the self-determination of a gathered group of Christians in one place where the highest authority is the church meeting. It is right and proper perhaps for individual Congregational churches to say, "We do not wish to continue that form of church government." But that is where the legal aspect comes in. My hon. Friend said that in my letter to The Guardian on Saturday I said that this was a legal Bill, I wish to quote a particular phrase from my letter. I said:
The Bill
—not the union
is not specifically religious because it is mainly concerned with changing trust deeds.
I do not want to follow my hon. Friend too far into theological matters, because I am looking at this matter, from the House's point of view, as a legality. I join him in many ecumenical ventures; I am ecumenical in outlook. But this House has a responsibility, particularly in view of the historic nature of these trusts and the irrevocability of the vote which has already been taken in certain churches. He, for the first time as far as I know, has given the percentage of vote. What he has not given us is the percentage either way within that group; nor has he given the percentage inside the Presbyterian Church. I come to the point about the figures.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Could I correct that? I did not give the percentage because I could not find the document. The position is that for the United Churches 35 per cent. voted in favour and 2½ per cent. of the enrolled membership voted against. For those who decided not to unite 30 per cent. voted against the scheme and 17 per cent. of the enrolled membership of those churches voted in favour of the scheme. In the Presbyterian churches I do not have the


percentage broken down, but of those who voted there were, of the two small churches, 18 voting in favour of the Union and 197 voting against, out of 60,000 in the Presbyterian churches.

Mr. Spearing: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for these figures. Some of our difficulty can be judged from the fact that this is the first time to my knowledge that these figures have been released. As 75 per cent. in the Presbyterian church need to vote to go out, the actual number who voted for and against the scheme is important. I will not weary the House with that now.
I do not discount the organic union of the Church. There are many ways in which Christian unity can be expressed, not least in the co-operation of Christian churches of many traditions in a community. I am glad that my own Council of Churches works very well in this respect. If there is to be organic union of the sort canvassed widely and which, rightly or wrongly has not been achieved by the Anglicans and the Methodists, then in the mixing of the traditions of the Christian churches we must be sure that this is soundly based in every respect. This House has to take account of the legal matters and I want to put one or two suggestions as to the tests we should apply whether this is firmly founded.
My hon. Friend has mentioned the voting and I am sorry he has not been able to give the Presbyterian figures because it may be that with 75 per cent. needing to come out in the Presbyterian churches there could be a significant number of Presbyterians who actually voted against this Measure. We do not know how many there are and that could lead to difficulties because the Presbyterian churches are fewer—308 as against 15,000 Congregational churches. Now to these tests.
We assume that a good deal of information was given to Congregational Church members concerning the changes that would emerge from the union. There may be votes but we know in this place that it is information before the vote that is important. To my knowledge there was no summary of the vast changes taking place in the Congregational Church. My hon. Friend has rightly said that the basic traditions of Congrega-

tionalism beliefs are disappearing. There was a Scheme of Union which was sent round and there were many copies of this. I do not know how many, and I have asked about this but there has been no reply. There was no summary pamphlet as far as I know given to each member of the Congregational Church. So we have great difficulty in knowing the actual number of people who had something on paper.
As to the legal matter of property, we read in this Scheme of Union on page 11 subsection (2)—and this is a matter of property which is vital in terms of individual church self-determination—that:
Property held for or in connection with a uniting church or congregation … is to be held for or similarly in connection with the corresponding local church of the new Church … Existing … trust deeds, are to be replaced by new trusts: see Schedule 2 to the Bill.
If we turn to the back of this book we find in Schedule 2 that there are indeed trustees and in respect of a church having full control of its own property the councils of the new church, rightly or wrongly, have power under Schedule 2(5) to dispose of the church premises or to say that they are no longer useful if in their judgment they believe that to be true.

Mr. John Roper: Would my hon. Friend agree that if we turn to page 10 of the Guide, at the bottom of paragraph 9 in the summary there is also a reference to the fact that it would be the Synod that would have ultimate control over the alteration and the disposal of church property? It would not be necessary to go to the end of the book or to the Schedule to see this.

Mr. Spearing: My hon. Friend may be right. Nevertheless it overturns the basic principle of Congregationalism and I do not know how many people had this book.
The second point is rather more serious, in my view, because it affects the sort of criteria we would wish to apply when looking at the joining of Christian churches. I am very jealous of the power and the influence of the Christian churches. I am sorry to see that in this particular union there was a condition placed upon certain ministers and churches. I was surprised to find it, and in my mind it engenders no confidence for the future. Indeed, people have said


to me that this particular requirement has caused great trouble inside the Congregational Church. That provision says:
A minister of a non-uniting church or congregation who resigns and also sends his name to the Clerk to the new General Assembly with a view to eventual appointment to a new local church may expect to receive reasonable interim financial support".
The difficulty about that is that if a minister of a church wishes to come into the new scheme and the church does not, then before the vote is taken there is a special church meeting, and, if there is not the 75 per cent., he will have to go. The relevant Clause does not make it very clear when he should resign; but it says he should resign. It seems to me that that provision is not fundamental to the scheme, but it muddies the difficulties for a church member, because he would have to take into account, were the75 per cent. not reached, whether he would wish the minister to retain the pastorate of the church.
I quote from a letter received by a church member from her minister:
Would it be possible for you to express your disapproval of the course taken, for your loyalty to the Congregational Association
—which is the alternative body, which was in existence—
by abstaining from voting?
In other words, in certain circumstances—I am not suggesting they would be widespread—the difficulties caused by this and other provisions would mean that certain ministers would be in difficulties with their own congregations. We have here an inbuilt factor which one would not expect to find in the sort of unity which we hope to find in Christian churches.
It is true that the Committee of the House which heard the argument for the Bill rejected certain Petitions. I wish to read the findings of that Committee:
The Committee, however, drew attention to the undertaking given by the promoters that the United Reformed Church will give very careful consideration to requests made in due form by individual churches to secede from the United Reformed Church, taking with them their property".
This undertaking was given by the promoters, quite properly, but only in that Committee.
The object of the new Clause goes a little further than that, as my hon. Friend

the Member for York mentioned. It takes the onus from the Assembly, which is the authoritative body, on to the church, after due consideration—a whole year after notice of wish to secede, a year for conversations and questions, and then another vote.
I hope that the House, considering these ancient trusts and this ancient tradition of independence, with their very great intermingling with the history of this House, would safeguard the trusts, the heirs and successors, who become members of the United Reformed Churches—as I may myself become, for I hope the Bill will go through in some form. I hope the House will give some protection against arbitrary power, and the arbitrary power of the Church Council, which has been no part of the life of the majority of the churches in this particular communion. That is why, it being a legal matter, Parliament is the only body which can judge. If we are to have a soundly-based Christian union of churches, it must have a legal foundation so that there is no doubt whatsoever.

Mr. Eddie Griffiths: Rubbish.

Mr. Spearing: I am sorry that my hon. Friend disagrees. I hope that when the churches join together there will be sufficient confidence among those who are being united that any doubts can be assuaged by a legal enactment in the Bill.

Mr. Griffiths: Does not my hon. Friend agree that if Christian men and women of whatever denomination wish to join together the last thing they want is to be told by law what is right and what is wrong? If they wish to join together, according to Christian philosophy, they will find a Christian solution to their problems and not a legal solution as my hon. Friend suggests.

Mr. Spearing: I think my hon. Friend has misunderstood what I have been saying. I do not believe that there should necessarily be legal powers of compulsion inside a Christian denomination. That is precisely the difference between the Congregational element and the other element. The existence of Districts, Synods and the Assembly—the Assembly has the final power on matters of belief and practice—brings into the structure a religious authoritarianism.
We should insert into the Bill a protective Clause providing that in the event of disagreement the church is not held by law, as it is if the Bill goes through as it stands. Once the churches move together by a vote, if there is any dispute they cannot secede, and it is the duty of the House to give that protection.
My hon. Friend has said that if the new Clause is accepted it will wreck the Bill. That may or may not be so; I hope not. Minorities have every right to the protection provided by the new Clause. If it delays union by one year, or even three years, is that not a small price to pay for the coming together of two denominations after 300 years? If my hon. Friend is right in saying that the insertion of the new Clause would wreck the whole idea of union, does not that reflect more upon the nature of the union as negotiated than upon the safeguarding Clause?
As an ecumenical Christian, I hope that any union will be founded on confidence and trust so that in surrendering their practices and beliefs the congregations can be assured that they will not be subjected to any arbitrary power from which they cannot escape.
The new Clause will give that degree of flexibility and confidence in the United Reformed Church that will make it the success I want it to be. I hope the new Clause will be accepted. If not, at least, I hope that hon. Members will remain until the debate ends.

11.55 p.m.

Mr. Michael Clark Hutchison: I speak as a member of the Church of Scotland and as the grandson of a Moderator and son in law of the Clerk to Presbytery in Aberdeen.
The Church of Scotland favours this move towards unity. This is the first time that two churches of different denominations have come together and it is very welcome. I think I am right in saying that ministers of the new United Reformed Church, whether they have been Presbyterians or Congregationalists, will be able to speak in the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland in Edinburgh and would be welcome.
It seems to me that these few words, giving an idea of what we in the Church

of Scotland think, might be of use to the House on this important question.

11.56 p.m.

Mr. David Steel: The hon. Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon), in introducing this debate, made such a clear and admirable speech that it is almost superfluous for anyone else to say anything in support of this Measure and many will share my desire to get on as quickly as possible to a conclusion.
The fact that so many are here shows our interest in this provision but I want, as briefly, I hope, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Clark Hutchison), to say that when a Bill of this kind has already been through the other place and has been under examination by a Committee of this House and is designed basically and technically to facilitate a union, and has been discussed, as the hon. Member for York rightly pointed out, by the two churches for a decade, it ill becomes this House at the last minute to try to throw a spanner in the works. When the great majorities in these conversations which have taken place in both churches have come to a conclusion on this matter, I hope we should feel able to let the Bill pass without further obstacle.
I am perhaps prejudiced in favour of this union—if, like the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South, we are declaring our personal experiences—because my father was a minister in the Presbyterian Church, in Scotland, of course, and my mother was brought up in the Congregational Church. I have always been prejudiced in favour of unions of this kind.
My regret is that conversations north of the border have not proceeded at the same speed to the same happy conclusion as they have in the south. The fact that this is the first union across the denominational lines since the Reformation is a significant point for this House. Somebody wandering into this debate a few minutes ago might have concluded that we were enacting a scenario from a Trollope novel, so abtruse were the interesting points being discussed.
Often in our general debates, when we are not discussing church matters specifically, we hear references to the impact of the Christian churches and Christianity on our country as a whole, but I believe


that one obstacle to the continued impact of the Christian churches in our country as a whole is the scandal of disunity. If, in this not radical but relatively minor step forward in a church unity, the House of Commons were to create an obstacle in any way, it would be to our everlasting shame.

11.59 p.m.

Mr. Marcus Worsley: We have heard views from the different points of the ecclesiastical compass and it would be suitable if an Anglican were to speak at this juncture.
I respond to what has just been said on the unity of the churches and many Anglicans feel a bit ashamed, especially in a debate opened by a Methodist, by our failure to respond to the tremendous gestures made by the Methodists in seeking unity with us. Many of us feel that we would want to do our best to help this forward as a real measure of unification between two Christian churches.
I wish to make only one simple point. Had the unification scheme between the Anglicans and the Methodists come to fruition, we, as Anglicans, would have had to come to this House for permission to unify. Whether that should be so is a matter that we can discuss some other time. But it is not necessary for Congregationalists and Presbyterians getting together to seek the permission of this House, and they come to this House only to achieve certain powers over property and trusts.
If we turn down this Bill or amend it in a wrecking way, it is clear that we shall be using our power over property and trusts to frustrate this measure of unity between the churches. That would be an abuse of our power. I should regard with great alarm the situation which would arise if two churches decided on this step after tremendous consultation over many years and this House said to them, on the ground that the trusts ought to be amended differently, "No. We shall not allow you to come together."
I feel that the great majority of, if not all, right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House who are Anglicans will support this Measure and wish it Godspeed.

12.1 a.m.

Mr. Anthony Wedgwood Benn: rose—

Sir Charles Taylor: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I may be wrong about this, but I seek your advice. Will the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) speak for the official Opposition from the Opposition Front Bench? If not, would not it be more customary, regular and according to past practices if the right hon. Gentleman spoke from one of the back benches?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): No. The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Sir C. Taylor) is wrong. There is no distinction made between benches in this House, except by common custom. All benches in the House are free to any hon. Member who can find a place in which to sit.

Mr. Benn: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Sir C. Taylor) for raising that point. I raised a similar point with my Chief Whip, asking from which position I should speak, thinking, as the hon. Gentleman does, that my contribution would come more appropriately from one of the back benches I was advised that it was customary for aright hon. or hon. Member to speak from his customary place in a case like this but to explain that he was speaking for himself, as was my intention. Since I now have the opportunity to speak from one of the back benches, at any rate I shall not be accused of making a long Front Bench speech.
Two points have struck me in the debate so far. The first came from my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon), who drew attention to what happened in the 1928 Prayer Book debate and said that it would be quite wrong for Parliament to repeat that. I agree with my hon. Friend. That is not the point at issue. We are not discussing the administration of any church.
The other point was made by the hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Worsley), who said that it would be wrong for Parliament to frustrate the wishes of these two churches to come together. I fully support what the hon. Gentleman said. There is no proposal in my mind nor in that of my hon. Friend the Member for Acton (Mr. Spearing) in any way to


frustrate the union of the two churches which have come together.
We are considering whether it is right for Parliament to legislate in such a way—for we have to legislate to do it—to extinguish for all time the property rights of churches which have now voted by a majority to enter into the United Reformed Church. That is a proper task for Parliament. That is why we are here today. If we are considering the Congregational Church, with all the contributions it has made over the centuries to the right of dissent, I hope that the House will listen patiently if some dissenters within the Congregational Church have their case put for a different way of handling these property matters.
There is no doubt that the ecumenical movement, of which this union is a part, has captured the imagination of the Christian churches and the House in recent years. Looking across the waters to Northern Ireland we are reminded of what happens when denominational differences are still used as a justification for dispute and warfare.
There are two views whether the ecumenical movement should express itself in organic unity, as proposed in the Bill, or by a mosaic of unity in diversity in which churches build upon their own foundation. That argument is in part what lies behind the Amendment. After all the labour, effort, love and devotion which has gone into the preparation of this union, I would not ask the House to frustrate in any way the union of those churches which wish to come together.
What we are considering is whether it is right that Parliament, by using its power, should shut out for churches which wish to join the new Church the right, if they wish, to leave it by a majority vote, twice recorded after careful consideration, under provisions laid down by the new Clause before the House. That is the sole and simple issue which lies for consideration in the new Clause.
My hon. Friend the Member for York pointed out that there were 465 churches which had not wished to join the new United Reform Church. My hon. Friend pointed out that 89 of them had come back to it and were likely to reconsider their position. If it is the case that churches which are now outside are to

join, what possible objection can there be that by a similar majority vote the churches that have gone in, if they wish under the provisions laid down by Parliament, can leave the United Reform Church after due consideration?

Mr. Eddie Griffiths: Will my right hon. Friend make up his mind whether he wants the union of the Presbyterian and Congregational Churches, or whether he is making an argument for the minority which wants to opt out? My right hon. Friend is making a pseudo-political argument—I do not mean "political" in the true sense of the word—in favour of opting out rather than giving full hearted blessing to the union between the Congregationalists and Presbyterians which will enable them to go ahead with the Christian work that is ahead of them rather than make all sorts of excuses.

Mr. Benn: If my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Eddie Griffiths) allows me to make my speech, he will hear the line of argument which I am putting to the House. To give the historic background, it ill befits the House, which learned its liberty of conscience made over the centuries, to dismiss even a small minority of Congregationalists who wish to retain—it is for them to decide—the Congregational tradition of autonomous government described in Clause 1.
I do not mean in any way to engage in strong argument tonight. However, Congregationalism is synonymous with the right of people to decide for themselves how they will worship God, organise their affairs and run their affairs. However small the minority may be, if there were only five churches that had not wished to join or only two that were in and wished to leave, that would not be a mean cause to come to Parliament and ask us to provide, if we think fit, that they should be able to do so under proper arrangements.
I shall go on to try to meet the arguments that might be put against so doing. First, it might be thought that those who promote the union believe that they should seal the frontiers between the new Church and other churches. But that is not so, because Clause 28 provides that any non-uniting church can join at any time. I fully support Clause 28.
Is it because the new Church is firmly set against anybody leaving it? Not at all. As hon. Members who have followed the matter know, a Mr. Huxtable, giving evidence to the Committee which recently sat under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley (Mr. John Robertson), made it clear that he could visualise circumstances in which churches would leave. I will not weary the House at this hour with the quotation, but he made it clear that, for instance, the church in Wales might want to hive off.

Mr. Eddie Griffiths: Why?

Mr. Benn: Because of another scheme of union. When pressed on the possibility of other churches wishing to leave, Mr. Huxtable made it clear that he was ready to contemplate that situation.
Is it that nobody can conceive of any circumstances in which any church might wish to leave such a union? We have the experience of the United States where, only 10 years ago, a similar union was established into which 100 churches went with the high hopes expressed by hon. Members tonight and subsequently decided to leave, not because they did not want Christian unity, but because, as my hon. Friend the Member for York said with clarity and candour, Congregationalism, as we know it, is ending and a new Church is coming forward. My hon. Friend would, I am sure, be the first to admit this is a fundamental change in what is known as Congregationalism.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: My right hon. Friend is in error on one point. A congregation is a church in the Congregational Church. A Presbyterian congregation is merely part of the total Presbyterian Church. The order in the Presbyterian Church is that the council of the church, the General Assembly, designates the policy for the whole Church. When a Congregational church wants to join the union, it is for the individual congregation to make that decision. When it wants to come out of the United Reformed Church it is merely part of a total Church. It is not just an autonomous congregation any more. It has finished with that; it has become part of a total Church. It is for that reason there is a distinction between going in and coming out. My right hon. Friend got his figures wrong

about America. Only 20 churches withdrew over 10 years.

Mr. Benn: In fairness, my hon. Friend, who presented his argument with clarity and candour, has made the point I was seeking to make. The very thing that brought churches out in the United States might bring churches out in Britain. When they discover the change which my hon. Friend described so clearly, they may feel that, because it is different from Congregationalism, to which they have adhered for hundreds of years, they would rather be out working with the new church than remain in. That is the nub of the issue we are considering.
We are not asked to adjudicate between one view and another; we, as Parliament, are asked to provide a fair system for handling property when these matters come to be settled.
This point was brought out absolutely clearly in the Committee upstairs by Mr. Drinkwater's cross-examination of Mr. Watson in which it was established that, under the provisions of the Bill, if a church wishes to leave it has to get the approval of the General Assembly of the new Church made up of a minority of former Presbyterians, whereas the Congregational Amendment, which I support, wants the right to leave to be provided in the Bill.
The question before the House is this: when dealing with the property of others, of bequests and trusts given to the Congregational Church over many hundreds of years, are we so sure that we are right to say that once one 75 per cent. majority vote has been cast the autonomous nature of that church comes to an end? That is the argument; it is no more than that.

Mr. Tom Ellis: Is my right hon. Friend saying that we are concerned with legal technicalities or that we are concerned with the continuance of Congregationalism?

Mr. Benn: We are concerned in this Bill only with property rights. Congregationalists are autonomous, not only in the way in which they worship God and in the way in which they call their ministers but in the way in which they organise and control their property. Therefore, it is extremely difficult to deal with the property question, which is all


that is before us, without coming to the heart of Congregationalism at the moment when we discuss it.
I know that the House wants the union; I am not opposed to the union. I know that the House wants the Bill; I am not opposed to the Bill. But I beg the House to listen to my argument because it has the support of a number of people who fear that the Congregational identity and hence its contribution to our society will accidentally be snuffed out by a legislative provision which we all support because we are so strongly in favour of Christian unity.
Mr. Huxtable, who has dedicated himself to this union, made it clear in the Committee that he could foresee circumstances in which the General Assembly would let out churches. By the new Clause we are trying to legislate to help him to ensure that what he thinks will happen does happen, because otherwise we are relying on the word of a dedicated individual who cannot speak for the General Assembly.
The difficulty is that the Bill provides for the extinction of what we call Congregationalism. I invite hon. Members to look at paragraph (1) of the preamble to the Bill, which reads:
The Congregational Church in England and Wales … is a voluntary unincorporated association of autonomous groups of persons … of the congregational denomination the affairs of which are regulated by a council and an assembly".
That is Congregationalism. Clause by Clause, the pillars of that Congregationalism are removed in favour of a new sort of Church.
I do not know how many churches who go in will realise later how big a sacrifice they have made in pursuit of organic unity. There may be very few; there may be none. But even if only one or two churches believe, on reflection, that they may have paid too high a price for Christian unity by giving up a 300 or 400-year-old tradition, we must be sure that we have legislated in such a way as to provide that this is possible.

Mr. Eddie Griffiths: I wonder whether my right hon. Friend would like to comment on the debit and credit sides of union. How many Congregationalists—and I include myself—would feel that they had given up a certain amount of

Christian philosophy by the union? My right hon. Friend speaks of 300 or 400 years of heritage. Would he talk, not in materials terms, but in Christian terms?

Mr. Benn: Three generations of Congregationalists went to make me. I am not a Congregationalist, but the sense of debt that I feel to the Congregational Church for the contribution it made to the maintenance of the liberties of this land is such that the least I can do is to make the case for the minority who believe that liberty of conscience requires them to ask Parliament to make it possible for them to leave.
Minorities and majorities have their rights, but my hon. Friend must know, after the passage of the Act of Uniformity what succesive Parliaments have done to dissenters and how it is the Congregationalists who have taught this Parliament time and again the lessons of liberty which we now have to remember in considering a small minority of that church.

Dame Patricia Hornsby-Smith: How can the right hon. Gentleman reconcile his democratic faith with the fact that a 75 per cent majority locally is right but he discards an 80 per cent. majority which is cumulative nationally?

Mr. Benn: The right hon. Lady may not have heard my argument clearly. If she had done she would know that I am asking for no majority to be overturned in any church. I am saying that if 75 per cent. wish to join to United Reformed Church, good luck to them. The Bill is for them, and we should pass it and let them go in. But if 75 per cent. of that church later wish to come out, we should not have frustrated them by our legislative eagerness to make possible the original union without providing for an orderly way that they can return to the nature of their autonomous independent Congregationalism.
There is nothing that I am advocating that would in any way overturn the democratic principle. The right hon. Lady will know that the basis of Congregationalism is the gathered church, the priesthood of all believers, the common ownership of property within the church and the rejection of outside authority.

Mr. Eddie Griffiths: rose—

Mr. Benn: I have yielded to my hon. Friend already. I wonder whether he would allow me to develop my argument a little further.
I have received, as other hon. Members have, a number of letters on this subject, and one which came to me says what I have tried, in less good words, to say:
That foundation principle of the Congregational churches states that they were founded upon full recognition of their own distinctive principle, namely, the scriptural right of every separate church to maintain perfect independence in the government and administration of its own affairs.
That is Congregationalism and that, as my hon. Friend the Member for York said, will be fundamentally changed by the Bill. Many others have written in a similar vein expressing anxiety on this score.
I apologise for having spoken for so long. I believe that the House would be least advised of all to disregard or dislike a minority view on this matter. For the reasons which I have given, I believe that this Parliament and this House of Commons have been more enriched by the Congregational tradition than by almost any other heritage that we have drawn from the past, and the least that we can do in considering the future of that great Church and its desire to join others is to have regard now for those who, rightly or wrongly, see their way forward in the maintenance of the autonomous principles of Congregationalism. The new Clause, which is carefully constructed not to wreck the Bill, should commend itself to the House.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I understand the reason for the large attendance—property is involved—but I wonder whether you could assist me on an important matter. How is it that certain hon. Members who have made a solemn and binding undertaking not to be present after midnight find themselves here tonight? Would you assist me to get rid of the hon. Members on the Liberal bench?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that the hon. Members suggestion is rather improper.

12.25 a.m.

Rev. Ian Paisley: We have listened with interest to what has

become a debate on ecumenism. I should be very happy to debate that. But tonight I do not propose to deal with something that does not concern the House. What concerns the House is the Bill. The Title states:
An Act to make provision as to property held on behalf of the Congregational Church in England and Wales and its member churches and of the Presbyterian Church of England, and for other purposes incidental to or consequential upon the formation of the United Reformed Church (Congregational-Presbyterian) in England and Wales.
It will be seen—[An HON. MEMBER: "Not Northern Ireland."] As hon. Members on the Opposition benches have acted to the detriment of Members of Parliament for Northern Ireland in putting over constituency matters in Northern Ireland debates, as a Member of the House I am entitled to take the opportunity in this debate and I shall do so.
Tonight it seems that the Motion raised in the House is not on the issues before the House but whether all of us should be asked to give our blessing to a union between the Congregational Church and the Presbyterian Church. If those churches want to enter into a union, that is their business and the House should have no say—and has no say—in that matter. The leaflet circulated by the sponsors of the Bill makes plain that
No parliamentary sanction is necessary to confirm this act of conviction namely the coming together of the two churches.
If they so desire, these two churches can come together, and it is no business of the House.
I believe that the State should not interfere in the Church and that the Church should not interfere in the State. [Interruption.] I knew that I would hear those remarks. But the Church has every right to use its influence like any other body, and if it wants to sponsor candidates or to support a line of thought it is entitled to do so. After all, the Liberal Party was once the voice of English non-conformity in this land. There is no need for noises from any part of the House about this matter. I believe—I know that there will be loud opposition when I say this—that the Church of England should be disestablished and should stand on its own legs and look after its own affairs.
It has been suggested tonight that this is a parallel case to the debate that took place in this honourable House over the Prayer Book of 1928. But no parallel can be drawn because that was a debate on doctrine. I do not want to enter into that tonight—although I should value the opportunity so to do—because I should not be in order.
However, there is a parallel in the history of both Houses of Parliament, and that is the Free Church case. The Free Church of Scotland entered into a union with the United Presbyterian Church of Scotland. As a result of that union, action was taken by the continuing Free Church members. It was carried through the courts in Scotland and came before the House of Lords. The House of Lords decided that the property should remain with the people who were continuing to uphold the basis upon which the trusts concerning that property were based. The House of Lords decided that the property should become the property of the continuing Free Church. This is a relative issue that we should discuss and a parallel case.
It has been widely circulated by the sponsors of the Bill that the purpose of those who have opposed the Bill is to seek in some way to stop the union. It is not possible for the House to stop the union, for this union does not need any sanction from the House. What I would like the House to do, is to have a look at the property and also at the way in which the Bill came before the House.
A booklet was published entitled "Joint Committee for Conversations between the Congregational Church in England and Wales and the Presbyterian Church of England". The booklet sets forth the basis of the Bill. In this booklet great disrespect is shown to the House, because the booklet says that the Bill would automatically become an Act.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: rose—

Rev. Ian Paisley: I will read the relevant passage from page 8:
(1) This explanation is designed to help members of the two denominations in their consideration of the accompanying Scheme and Bill, which are necessarily somewhat technical in form. The aim is to explain shortly

what the structure of the proposed new Church will be, how members and ministers of existing local churches will be affected, how the assets of existing churches will be dealt with, and how it is intended to bring the new Church into existence. Doctrinal matters are not here considered.
(2) The general constitution of the new Church is set out in the Scheme. The Bill supplements the Scheme by providing for matters, mostly relating to church property and trusts, which cannot be dealt with privately but need legislative authority.
That is what we are discussing now.
If the necessary preliminary resolutions are passed, the Scheme will eventually be adopted by a 'Uniting Declaration'. This will be made by a meeting of the combined Assemblies of the two existing Churches and will on the day on which it is made (the 'date of formation') bringing the new Church into existence and the Scheme into operation. The Bill will by then have received Royal Assent.
There is no suggestion that the Bill could be amended. There is no suggestion that the House might want to reconsider it. It will just automatically receive Royal Assent. It continues:
and it too will operate as from the date of formation, so that in effect the new Church will come into existence and be subject to the provisions of the Scheme and the Bill (now an Act of Parliament), on that day, which is expected to be in the latter part of 1972.
There is no suggestion that the Bill may not be acceptable to the House in regard to its content.
In the leaflet which has been sent to all Members of the House—I take it that it has been sent to all Members—the promoters say that they
very respectfully submit that the matter having been referred to a Committee of your Honourable House and dealt with by them should not now be re-opened".
So they would deny the House the right even to discuss the Bill. What is more, the last page of the leaflet says that if any Amendment is made to the Bill, the Bill will have to be withdrawn—that the House must take it all or nothing.
All this illustrates that the way that the Bill has been brought before the House has not shown much respect for the House. Many people think that we should not discuss it at all but should just pass it en bloc— —

Mr. Eddie Griffiths: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will the hon. Gentleman indicate his interest in


this matter? I have followed the hon. Gentleman's career in the House. This is the first time in his career here that we have heard him talk about a subject which has nothing to do with Northern Ireland.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order for me. The hon. Gentleman knows that.

Rev. Iain Paisley: Surely an hon. Member has the right to express himself on any subject, and this being a Private Member's Bill anyone who wishes to do so can take part in the debate. It was because I put up the barrier to prevent the Bill passing through the House quickly that the debate is taking place. This has also given hon. Members on the Labour benches the opportunity to speak. The hon. Member is most welcome to take part and we shall listen with interest to what he has to say.
Another matter has been stressed relating to the large size of the majority, but how were the figures arrived at? On page 19 of the first day's proceedings in Committee when the Minister Secretary of the Congregational Church in England and Wales was being cross-examined, he said that
1,668 churches, comprising 136,856 members have resolved to unite.
When he was cross-examined about the figure it was discovered that these numbers did not all resolve to unite. On page 27 reference is made by Mr. Woolley to the Warwich Road, Coventry, Congregational Church. The church had 550 members. At the church meeting 100 members voted in favour of union but it was reckoned that as a two-thirds majority was achieved at that meeting the whole 550 must be regarded as voting in favour of the union although there was a substantial vote against the proposal. We have received the percentage of the people voting from the hon. Member who is sponsoring the Bill, and this is the first time the House has been given that percentage.

Mr. Roper: The hon. Member referred to two-thirds of the members voting in favour. It would have been three-quarters in this case. My hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon) also pointed out that 38 per cent. of the total voted, making 47,000 voting in favour of uniting the Churches and only 2,555 voting against.

Rev. Ian Paisley: The hon. Member is right but he must concede this: it is not right to say that 136,856 resolved to unite, because that includes the entire membership. I am glad the hon. Member nods his head in approval. That figure is the total membership of the uniting churches, but there was only a two-thirds majority of those who voted. It is misleading to say that they resolved to unite when some members did not even attend the meeting and others actually voted against the proposal. How can they have resolved to unite?
There is another point concerning the Presbyterian churches. They had the right to opt out of the union, not the right to vote to go in. So far we have had no percentage of the Presbyterians who attended the meetings at which the decision was taken who voted to opt out. They could have been in a majority and yet, because the necessary two-thirds majority was not achieved, they were not regarded as dissenting from the proposal for union.
Various trusts are to be changed by one sweep of the Bill, which is a serious matter. People have given their money to support a particular form of Christianity. They have said that they want that money to be invested so that that particular form of Christianity can carry out its witness. Tonight we are to change thousands of trust deeds, because all the Congregational churches concerned are held on individual trust deeds. Some of the older ones are held with a rider that certain doctrines should be upheld by the particular church. By one sweep, Parliament is tonight to wipe out what has been legally established over many years and to say that the deeds must all be changed to conform to one title deed, as suggested in the scheme of union before us. That is something in which every hon. Member is entitled to take an interest. The matter could lead to great litigation, because some of the trust deeds have a proviso clause that if the church is ever sold the money must go to a church of like faith and order.
The matter is one not of ecumenical union but of property. [Interruption.] There is no mention of ecumenicism in the Bill. It would be against the power and authority of the House to try to say to any Church, "You should unite with


another." I am sure that the hon. Gentleman who made such a stupid intervention has not even read the scheme of union, let alone the minutes of the meeting upstairs.

Mr. Michael English: Is not the hon. Gentleman now denying the powers of the House in the way he earlier accused the document of doing?

Rev. Ian Paisley: No, I am simply saying that the House has no legal right to push the Congregational or the Presbyterian Church into a union, or to say that they should not have the union. They have the absolute power in themselves to have the union. That is not disputed in their own statement, which has been circulated, that:
No parliamentary sanction is necessary to confirm this act of conviction namely the coming together of the two churches.
That is the point I am trying to establish. I repeat that the matter has to do with property, and that is where the House comes into it.

Mr. Timothy Raison: My hon. Friend says, I think fairly, that the Bill is about property. I assume that his proposed new Clause is also about property, but the first four subsections have nothing to do with property. They define a procedure by which people may secede from the Church. It therefore seems to me that it is not a logical argument that my hon. Friend is putting forward.

Rev. Ian Paisley: The whole aim of the Amendment is that the people can secede and if they have a majority still retain their property.
I want to make one other point about the Amendments standing in my name. The Preamble to the Bill says
The Assembly of the Congregational Church and the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church being convinced that the will of God is a union of their respective churches …
It does not say "the will of God for them" but "the will of God". That strikes at the dissenters and those that have left, those that do not want to be in the union. My simple Amendment to the Preamble is to take those words out of the Bill and to let those concerned decide

why they want or do not want the union. Let this House not be asked to decide who has the mind of the Almighty on this subject.

12.45 a.m.

Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas: I wish to say a few words in support of the hon. Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon) who—it seems a long time ago—spoke so restrainedly and sincerely and movingly. I dissent from only one thing in that he seemed to cast, I am sure unintentionally, some doubt on the motivation of the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Spearing). I would only say a word of warning, if I may lapse into my native Latin, there that there is only one thing worse than odium politicum, and that is odium theologicum.
I feel at a slight disadvantage in this debate. There are those who, like my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Clark Hutchison), can produce a Moderator of the Church as an ancestor. Others have produced ministers. I wish I could produce a bishop as my paternal ancestor, but it would also do neither me nor that hypothetical person very much good.
A few years ago, it would have been asked why I, as a Roman Catholic, was intervening in this debate at all. Roman Catholics might have said, "What is it to us if conventicles of heretics wish to get together?" Others might have said, "What right has the 'scarlet woman', speaking through one of her lackeys, to make a contribution to this kind of discussion?" Those times are fortunately passed and we consider these questions in the whole context of Christian unity.
In one sense, I suppose that this is a minor occasion. It is taking place late at night in the House. On the other hand, it is remarkable how many right hon. and hon. Members are here, and, I think, if one looks at our debates on the European Communities Bill, one can say that at least Christianity is a greater draw than the Common Market. Some doubt has been expressed about right hon. Members speaking from the Front Bench. I welcome right hon. Members from the Front Bench here on a religious topic; it may well do them some good. They, as we well know, are more endowed with original sin than are back benchers. That is why they are where they are and we are where we are.
This is a matter in which I dissent from the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley). It concerns much more than property. Property brings the issue before us, but much wider issues than that are involved. What is involved here in a particular way is the whole ecumenical issue which is now before the country. It is right that it should be discussed in the House of Commons. I think that what the Measure represents is this—that although there may be differences at the intellectual level, although there may be differences about theology between various branches of the Christian Church, on the level of feeling, of what people desire, those divisions are gone.
I remember talking about this to the Patriarch Athanagoras of Constantinople. He said, "I am surprised to find that all theologians, in whatever Church they may be found, seem to have had the same mother." I think that it is appropriate that the House of Commons, which is a non-theological body can give a lead in this direction, which theologians cannot.
This is a union which concerns the Congregationalists and the Presbyterians. I have had some experience not of the Presbyterian Church but of the Congregational Church, because we have a very flourishing Congregational community in Chelmsford and members of that community have written and, indeed, telegraphed, to me to seek my support for this Measure tonight.
This must be seen as part of a wider move for Christian unity, not only of Congregationalists and Presbyterians coming together, but of Methodists and Anglicans coming together—another issue which is before the country—and I hope that we shall see also Anglicans and Roman Catholics coming together. If I may be allowed a personal reflection, it is a great grief to me to be separated from our national Church, with all its beauty, its dignity, and its holiness, when it is a Church which has sprung from the same root as my own Church. One looks forward to a union which will eventually incorporate all Christians. That is the context in which we should consider this.
When one has said that one must also say that the rights of conscience must be paramount. No one must be forced or dragooned into unity against his will.

I think here of the words of Cardinal Newman in a letter to the Duke of Norfolk when he said,
If I am asked to drink a toast to the Pope in an after-dinner occasion, which hardly seems to be the thing, I shall certainly drink to that; yes, to the Pope second, but to conscience first.
We must in this House always be zealous about the rights of conscience. They are in fact respected in this Bill because any Congregational or Presbyterian congregation which wishes to contract out of the Bill has the right to do so. That is firm, but what the Bill is also saying is that once the commitment has been made that commitment must be permanent because if it is possible to reserve a right to withdraw later then the whole scheme will be wrecked. That is a practical not a theological point. It is linked up with ecumenism as a whole.
There cannot be, in ecumenism, any cast-iron guarantees for the future. It is not possible to move forward with a whole series of insurance policies guaranteeing one against what might happen. We simply do not know. No Congregationalist, no Presbyterian, knows where this path to which they have set their feet will end. All they can do is to make an act of faith, which is what this Measure is, to move together, to grow together. That takes time. If there has been a growing apart over hundreds of years there will not be an immediate coming together because of a Clause in a Bill; there has to be a gradual growing together.
This is where the contribution of the right hon. Member for Bristol, South East (Mr. Benn) while perfectly legitimate and totally sincere was wrong-headed. He spoke about Congregationalism ending. That is his view but I see ecumenism in a quite different way. In the ecumenical movement there is no loss but only gain. No one loses his own traditions; people add new perspectives to those traditions. They are enriched by others, not impoverished.
We are moving into a new era and we want to look to the future. We do not want to look to the past. This is a small stone, admittedly, but a stone of great importance in a new edifice. What the House is being asked to do is not so much to contribute positively to the building of this edifice, but not to stand


in the way, to get out of the road and let those who are committed to the Christian religion get on with the work of unity to which they are commanded by their Founder.

12.54 a.m.

Mr. Ron Lewis: I speak this evening as a sympathetic Methodist observer who wishes to see this scheme succeed. It has been warmly welcomed as a whole by the Methodist Church. To my hon. Friend the Member for Acton (Mr. Spearing) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) I would say that I can sympathise with them to a degree, and I am glad they have had their say, and I would not in any way doubt their sincerity, but, having said that, I do not think they have particularly helped the Christian Church as a whole by their contributions here this evening.
I get the impression that what has aroused parliamentary controversy this evening is the desire of some to include in the Bill the possibility of withdrawal from the scheme at some future date; I get the impression that the debate has centred around that. Against that inclusion I would argue four things.
First, this scheme has been slowly developed over some 39 years, during which gradual steps have been slowly taken. Second—and this is important—there has been consultation at every level, Assembly, county union, Presbyteries, even down to the local congregations. At the end of the day we are not so much discussing property as people, and it is people who form the congregations. Third, the scheme was overwhelmingly accepted by both denominations at their respective General Assemblies in 1971 and ratified during the year by county unions, on the one side, and Presbyteries on the other. Fourth—and this is important—individual congregations then had to decide for themselves whether to enter into or to reject the scheme. Congregationalists, as I understand it, had to have an affirmative vote with a three-quarters majority; and the Presbyterians a negative vote, according to the booklet, at page 12.
I think it can safely be said that every opportunity has been given for discussion, for criticism, and even for rejection of

the scheme. It can now be argued that those congregations which have voted in favour by such a substantial majority ought to be totally committed. Ample time and opportunity have been given for discussions and positive decisions. Having spoken in several debates concerning the church, for which I make no apology, my view is that it would be morally wrong at this stage for Parliament to interfere in any way with this Measure.
I have been requested by some of my evangelical friends to support opposition to the Measure as advocated by my hon. Friend the Member for Acton—

Mr. Spearing: My hon. Friend referred to opposition to the Measure as proposed by myself. I say once again that I wish the union to take place but on such terms that we can be confident of its success. I wish the Measure to go through. I am not putting the Amendment to block it.

Mr. Lewis: I am just saying that I have been asked to support some of my evangelical friends. I want the scheme to be accepted in its entirety. No one expects the union by itself to deal with the missionary needs of the church. But, despite all its weaknesses, the Measure should enable all members of the United Reformed Church to be more effective ambassadors for Christ and his Gospel. It will be a new church, it will be out ward-looking, and I give it support.
In my constituency there are four churches that are involved in the Measure. Fisher Street Presbyterian Church has 500 members and it has voted in favour. Warwick Road Presbyterian Church, with 183 members, has voted in favour. Charlotte Street Congregational Church, with 80 members, has come out in favour of the scheme. A Congregational church with a smaller membership is the only one to express some dissatisfaction, although the minister, who is now retired, supports the scheme. This reveals an indication of a world-wide picture in which congregations have had full opportunity for debate and have made free decisions on the scheme as it stands.
I hope that my hon. Friends, having had their rearguard action here tonight, will allow the scheme to go through without a Division, and will throw in


their lot to make the new United Reformed Church a mighty power in the land—heaven knows, the country needs it.

1.3 a.m.

Mr. R. J. Maxwell-Hyslop: Contrary to the declared view of the promoters of the Bill whose statement shows that they think it is wrong for the House of Commons to discuss this matter seriously—there is no other possible interpretation of the last paragraph of page 2—the fact that nearly a hundred hon. Members are present an hour after midnight shows that a large number of Members of Parliament are interested in the issues at stake and in learning from the debate. I am certainly interested and am still learning from it.
There is a marked similarity between the Amendment which has been tabled and the Married Women's Property Act. Once upon a time when a woman entered into a newly created relationship—marriage—she brought in any property she had. If she ever, for any reason whatever, left that marriage she left behind everything she had brought in with her. It is not to derogate marriage as an institution to say that in my view the Married Women's Property Act introduced an element of justice which was previously lacking.
The Amendment says, as I understand it, that if two churches unite into a new entity—and everyone in the House agrees that that is desirable—both bringing with them certain tangible assets which were contributed by their forefathers for a specific purpose, it is right that, insofar as legislation is passed by Parliament to regulate, not the doctrine, not the religious practices, but the law of ownership and disposal of that property, then, just as in the case of marriage, Parliament has laid down how, in the event of a lamentable breakdown, the distribution of that property should be equitable, so, when two churches hopefully enter into a new and richer union, bringing property with them, then, if for reasons however lamentable, that union should fail, then, rather than the subsequent disposal of property becoming a matter of litigation and consequent bitterness, it should be known in a declaratory manner in the legislation which deals with the purely physical aspect of this union what the

circumstances will be in the possible, but one hopes improbable event of a dissolution of that union.
This is not an unreasonable proposition to place before the House on Report stage and I have, to date, heard no arguments which suggest to me either that that analogy is false, or that that proposition is inherently unjust.
This Bill has nothing to do with what people believe, with where they meet, with religious practices or forms of worship adopted, but has to do with the gathering together of property. That is what it declares itself to have to do with.
The gathering together of this property is a vehicle towards a desirable end, just as the junction of two people in marriage creates something which is more than the sum total of the two individuals who uniquely and individually existed, previous to that marriage, but experience showed that that was not enough and that it was desirable that Parliament should lay down an equitable system to deal with the regrettable eventuality of the failure of that union. I have yet to hear a convincing case as to why what is so reasonable in the case of those human relationships, should be cast out of court and regarded as unreasonable and destructive in an inherently parallel situation.

1.8 a.m.

Mr. Eric Ogden: I shall try to be as commendably brief as was the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Clark Hutchison) earlier, but it seemed to me that there were times when Christian charity was a little thin on the ground.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) for, in his inimitable way, cooling the temper, and also to one or two others.
Is this Bill about property or the ecumenical movement? I take as my text the document given to us by the promoters, or the Book of Addendums, Chapter One. There is a phrase there which puts the case clearly:
Any proposal which confers a right to secede would be in conflict with the Scheme of Union which as been approved by the Churches. The Promoters respectfully ask that the proposed clause be not added to the Bill because they have no mandate to accept such a proposal and if the clause were so


added they would consequently be unable to proceed with the Bill and the Scheme itself could not take effect".
Clearly the choice before us is between a scheme of unity now and an untold period ahead of doubt and deferment. Having listened to the debate, I intend to do what was in my mind when I came into the Chamber, which is to support the Bill and to resist the Amendment. With respect to those with a different viewpoint, nothing that I have heard has changed my mind.
My second point is a simple one, and I say this with no disrespect to my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon), who argued his case cogently and persuasively. However, I disagreed with the way that he referred to my hon. Friend the Member for Acton (Mr. Spearing). It may be thought unfair to pick upon one point in an otherwise admirable speech, but it hit me hard.
Other right hon. and hon. Members have declared their religious affiliations. I happen to be a Methodist. Had I been born in a different house in a different street, I might have belonged to another denomination. However, we all speak as Members of Parliament. That is our right and duty, and I hope that those hon. Members who have been criticised for speaking only on behalf of their own interests and sections of the country will continue to speak as Members of this Parliament, whether they be from Antrim, North or from anywhere else.
My hon. Friend the Member for Acton has been described as a dissenter. I remind hon. Members that the Presbyterian, Non-Conformist and Baptist Churches were based on and born out of dissent all the way along the line—what Dante called "divine discontent". They have put forward their points of view, and they are right to do so. Having said that, and perhaps looking both ways, I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) is so much in favour of dissent—on this one point, at least. This is a choice for us. There is no question of a referendum. The choice is between a scheme of unity now which is not concerned with narrow property rights, and uncertainty. My choice is in favour of a scheme of unity now.

1.12 a.m.

Mr. John Roper: Right hon. and hon. Members have been declaring not only their interests but their genealogies, and perhaps I ought to declare my own. I am a member of the Congregational Church and the son, grandson and great grandson of Congregational ministers. But I was baptised by a Presbyterian minister. Therefore I have an interest in this Measure.
I am glad to support the Bill, as the Congregational Church is on the threshold of an historical development. The growing together of the two churches has been going on for many years, as my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Ron Lewis) said. There have been not only conversations between the two churches but a number of links at local levels. The first Congregational church that I remember, the one of which my father was minister at the beginning of the war, was a joint Congregational-Presbyterian church.
The proposed union shows evidence of years of prayer, discussion and decision, and the Bill is to deal with certain of the property links in the process. My hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon) has outlined them to the House.
It is not my intention to delay the House long. I wish merely to reply to some of the points which have been raised in this very useful debate. I ought first to refer to the speech of myhon. Friend the Member for Acton (Mr. Spearing), whose sincerity in this matter is held in high esteem throughout the House. As my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden) pointed out, we should not be Congregationalists if we did not dissent from time to time. I have a great respect for the views which my hon. Friend the Member for Acton put forward, and the way in which he has ensured that this important matter was discussed by the House. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for York pointed out, there is a possible defect in the hon. Member's new Clause as it refers to "A uniting church", and that will be dissolved by Clause 5(3)(g).
It seems that there is something rather unfortunate about a Bill and a scheme of union which will bring uniting Congregational churches and Presbyterian churches


altogether as a United Church, if once they are in the United Church we should remember which were ex-Congregational, and give them special rights, and which were ex-Presbyterian. Once the new Church has been formed, we should think of all these churches as local churches going through together.
My lion. Friend the Member for Acton said that his Amendment was not a wrecking Amendment. I know that my hon. Friend wishes to see the Bill go forward with his new Clause included, but it must be repeated that in the view of the promoters of the Bill, if my hon. Friend's new Clause were included the scheme of union would have to go back to all the churches for further discussions. It must be brought out that the degree of local autonomy which would be maintained for Congregational churches might not be acceptable either to some of the Congregational churches, or the Presbyterian churches, to maintain this degree of independence within the new denomination. Although in general this is a property matter, the new Clause introduces once again the whole doctrine of church government which would operate within the new Church once it has been formed. Reference has been made to information to church members. As well as the scheme of union, there have been earlier documents going out to all the churches—in 1968 an interim report, in 1969, a report to the assemblies, and later the scheme of union.
The churches concerned have had full opportunity to discuss and consider all that is implied. Those with whom I have discussed the matter, who have been present at church meetings, know that there have been full discussions. The churches concerned have realised what they are entering; Congregationalists giving up certain measures of autonomy and Presbyterians changing in some ways some of their practices and going forward together. A new United Church would contain part of their traditions, an amalgamation which would be stronger than either of their own traditions.
The important thing is that the churches have decided to come forward in this form of union. They have accepted that in future they should make decisions not individually but as a community of churches. To insert this new Clause would cut away the essential principle,

which has been accepted by the churches, that in future decision-making, instead of being individually carried out by the church, should be done by the collective bodies working together.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn), whose Congregational heritage I am proud to share, indicated some of the same points. My right hon. Friend stressed the importance of the independence of the Congregational Church, of which in the past we have been proud. The churches now feel that the time has come to go forward into this wider union, and that in future decisions should be taken collectively rather than individually.
Those who have had the right to maintain the independent position of the Congregational churches have had the right to opt out, but the others have decided that from now on they will act together in a collective form. It is not fair to quote the experience of the United States. That Church maintained a large degree of Congregational Church government, even though it was a United Church. It was not a United Church with the same sort of structure as this Church. The experience of the United Churches of Canada, Jamaica and Ghana, which have followed structures more similar, would have been a great deal more encouraging. As the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) said, we are not talking about the extinction of Congregationalism; we are talking about the Congregational Church going forward into a new United Reformed Church.
I now turn to what was said by the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) about the phrase in the preamble referring to the conviction of the churches concerned that they were acting in the will of God. It is for them to decide whether they are acting in the will of God. I think that the hon. Gentleman's Amendment to delete the statement of their belief is a gratuitous insult to the churches concerned. It would be a great pity if the House accepted that Amendment.
The hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop), in a brief intervention, made some remarks about a parallel with the Married Women's Property Act. This is not altogether a correct analogy. As was made clear in Committee, if a church decided to leave the union it would be


appropriate for the Charity Commissioners to work out a scheme for the allocation of the property. I do not think, therefore, that we need to build into the Bill a complicated scheme for the allocation of property in those circumstances. Indeed, the new Clause would not seek to do so.

Mr. Donald Stewart: I have not heard any right hon. or hon. Member deal with one particular point. What is the objection to the Amendment? Would any church want to retain a congregation where the majority wanted to break away?

Mr. Roper: Of course, no church wishes to have discontented people among its congregation. I do not wish to create a situation in which there is always the question of churches coming in or out of the union when it has been established and the trusts have been properly worked out together. I hope the House will accept the Bill without the Amendment. I believe the Bill represents the will of the churches. They have acted in the right and proper way in coming to their conclusions. It would be a tragedy if a minority in the Congregational Church, who have had the right to opt out and maintain their independence, should now persuade the House to prevent the vast majority of congregationalists maintaining their objective of union with the presbyterians.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Before the Hon. Gentleman sits down I should like to ask him about the point he made concerning my speech. Does the hon. Gentleman not feel that the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church and the Congregational Church Union Assembly have a right to speak only for themselves about the will of God? This is what I pointed out in my speech. Some people in those assemblies were thoroughly convinced that union was not the will of God. Therefore, I repeat, I do not think there was any insult. I had no intention of casting an insult. They may speak for themselves, but they should not speak for those who, within their ranks, felt that it was the will of God to pursue a different course. This point is vital. It cannot be glossed over by saying that it is an insult.

Mr. Roper: No doubt the hon. Gentleman has read paragraph 7 of the preamble. That does not refer to the Congregational Church and the Presbyterian Church. That would lay itself open to the charge the hon. Gentleman has laid. The words are clear:
The Assembly of the Congregational Church and the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church being convinced that the will of God is a union of their respective churches.
That refers specifically to the Assemblies, and the Assembly of the Congregational Church, meeting within a few miles of this House only two months ago, decided, by an overwhelming majority, with only four votes shown against, that it was the will of God for a union of their churches. I believe they are entitled to say it is the will of God.
The promoters of the Bill believe that union between these churches would not only be a desirable end in itself, but a first step towards wider ecumenicism. I hope the House will therefore reject the Amendments and the new Clause.

Question, That the Bill, as amended, be now considered, put and agreed to.

Bill, as amended, considered accordingly.

Mr. Spearing: As the mind of the House appears to be made up, and as it has demonstrated its concern for Christian unity, lest any Division be interpreted as destroying that sole wish, I do not propose to move the new Clause.

Preamble

Rev. Ian Paisley: I beg to move, in page 2, line 30, leave out from "Church" to "have" in line 32.
I do not wish to discuss the Amendment. I covered it fully in my speech. However, I must have it put to a vote.

Question, That the Amendment be made, put and negatived.

To be read the Third time.

ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kenneth Clarke.]

Orders of the Day — DISABLED PEOPLE (EMPLOYMENT)

1.26 a.m.

Mr. Jack Ashley: My main purpose in this debate is to expose the facts of a deeply disturbing problem, criticise the Minister's inexcusable failure, suggest methods of improving the situation—and offer radical alternative proposals.
Parliament is deluding itself in assuming that the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act is helping the disabled. It is a shadow without substance. It should be made a reality—or dropped in favour of a realistic alternative.
The facts are shocking. The rate of unemployment among registered disabled people is 15 per cent. Every firm employing over 20 workers must employ a quota of 3 per cent. Those who do not and take on new workers without a permit are committing an offence. Out of 62,537 firms, no less than 58 per cent. are failing to fulfil their 3 per cent. quota—and 14,848 of these have not been granted permits. Thus, every time they take on a new worker they are flagrantly breaking the law. The figures themselves are serious—but the trend is ominous. The number of firms failing to fulfil their 3 per cent, quota in 1961 was 25,340–38·6 per cent. By 1971 it had risen dramatically to 36,382–58·2 per cent.
Personally, I prefer persuasion to prosecution. But persuasion has been given an inordinate run—and failed. It is now time to use the alternative. During this decade there has been only a single prosecution against one firm breaking the law. Why? I would appreciate it if the Minister could avoid repeating the bromide about prosecutions jeopardising the goodwill of progressive employers. We are not discussing them. We are concerned with those who are indifferent and negligent.
My indictment of the Minister rests on the following grounds. First, he has failed to prosecute employers breaking the law and has thereby aided and abetted firms evading their duty. I do not have to be told that some have such complicated processes that they cannot take on disabled workers. I know that. But they must have a Government permit before they take on fit workers. The

Minister has failed to ensure this. His failure to act is the more deplorable since he is known to favour the prosecution of trade unionists when they break the law.
Secondly, he is refusing to collect relevant information. I asked him on 17th May if he would give, for each of the last 10 years, the number of firms employing over 20 people who do not employ new people. He said that the information was not available and he made no offer to seek it. Yet without this information he is unable to enforce the law because he does not know where it is broken.
Thirdly, he is complacent about the problem. At a time when over 90,000 disabled workers are desperately looking for a job he told me in a Parliamentary answer on the 6th of this month:
I am satisfied that my Department provides effective services for helping disabled people find work."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th June, 1972; Vol. 838, c. 226.]
Anyone who can express satisfaction in the present situation is clearly and culpably complacent. That is precisely the kind of answer that will delight law-breaking firms and dismay disabled people who are unemployed.
Fourthly, he is neither ensuring that the present system works properly nor offering a viable alternative. If the present system is good he should enforce it. If it is bad he should reject it and find another to replace it.
I believe that the two most effective ways of ensuring the observance of the present system are to prosecute employers breaking the law and to publish the names of those firms who do not maintain their quota. If this were done there would be a significant reduction in the number of disabled people unemployed.
I fully appreciate all the difficulties involved. But the Minister must recognise and act upon the important fact that disabled people are desperate for work. They are capable of work. They are usually reliable workers. But the shoulder-shrugging indifference of some employers—and some trade unionists—mustbe broken down.
I am insisting that the present scheme should be operated properly in the interests of disabled people—or scrapped. But I am far from convinced that the


present scheme is the best one. I appreciate that some disabled people do not register—and they should not under any circumstances be forced to do so.
I want incidentally to suggest two radical proposals which I hope the Minister will seriously consider. The first is that all employers should pay for their 3 per cent. quota of disabled workers. Those who employed 3 per cent. would get value for money—those who did not would not. This would ensure that while the cooperative firms were not penalised the firms which are evading their responsibility would be. At any rate they would have a strong incentive to employ their full quota. Instead of disabled people asking the employers for work, they would be asking disabled people to work for them. The shoe would be neatly placed on the other foot. I offer the suggestion in principle. In practice a 2 per cent, quota would probably be sufficient to provide reasonably for all disabled workers.
The other proposal, which can be used as complementary or alternatively to the one which I have just outlined, is based on the principle of a subsidy for all severely disabled workers in open industry. Their disablement could be assessed in percentage terms and employers would pay them accordingly. The Government would make up their wages to the level of a fit worker by means of a subsidy.
The subsidy principle is already clearly established in Remploy. In fact, each worker is subsidised to the extent of £13 a week, yet average male earnings are only £17·60p. It is scandalous that over 12,000 people in sheltered workshops should be earning these miserable, inadequate wages. It is equally disturbing that a further 12,000 very severely disabled persons are waiting for work in sheltered industry. That is an unemployment rate of 50 per cent.—and the Minister says that he is satisfied.
I hope that the Minister will immediately order a pilot scheme on one or both of these proposals. There will be problems of job evaluation and the question of the degree of severe disablement necessary for eligibility for the subsidy. But it would be a valuable and worthwhile project designed to revolutionise the provision for disabled people at work in Britain today. It could lead to the inte-

gration of disabled people into open industry—no matter how disabled they were—and the proper provision for them as part of the everyday life of the community.
Hand in hand with this must go vast—not pettifogging but vast—improvements in the disablement resettlement officer service with increased numbers and an improved career structure.
I should like to end with a word of praise to the Minister for initiating a review of employment policies and services for disabled people. This is a crucial report and I regard its publication as of paramount importance—so do many others concerned with the disabled. I hope he will reconsider his refusal to publish it. I assure him this is an issue which will not be dropped. Unless the House knows all the facts it must treat ministerial announcements on this subject with great reserve. The publication of this report would go a long way towards establishing greater understanding between Ministers and back benchers.
This action, together with the other initiatives I have outlined, would reassure the disabled that the Minister, like all of us, really means business on this important issue.

1.37 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Dudley Smith): The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) is widely known for his interests in the general welfare of disabled people. But I think that he has been unfair and unduly and uncharacteristically harsh in his admonitions at this late hour. I am positive that the political heads in my Department, the current political heads and permanent officers of the Department, yield to no one in their concern for the welfare of disabled people. This is something which cuts right across any political thought and bounds. I reject much of what the hon. Gentleman says because his accusations of complacency are totally unfounded.
We are deeply conscious that to a disabled person unemployment is not simply a hardship but is an additional hardship. We recognise, too, that the rate of unemployment among registered disabled people is much too high. That is why everything is being done to try to improve the situation.
Before turning to the steps which the Government have taken and will be taking, I emphasise that it is unwise to rely overmuch on the unemployment rate for registered disabled people as an accurate pointer to the real employment situation among the disabled. The figures have necessarily to be treated with some reservations. It needs to be stressed that registration as a disabled person is voluntary. Many disabled people are not, on medical or psychological grounds, encouraged to register, and experience has shown that often disabled people prefer not to register. This is particularly so when they consider their employment to be secure; though there may be a greater incentive to register when they lose their jobs.
For these reasons, the figures only partly reflect the true situation, and my Department has evidence to suggest that there are as many unregistered but registrable disabled persons in employment as there are registered disabled people in employment.
Having made those reservations, I turn for a moment to the general economic situation. I wish to stress that any substantial improvement in the employment prospects of disabled people must depend largely upon an improvement in the general employment situation. Experience shows, as one would suppose, that unemployment amongst registered disabled persons largely follows the general pattern, although at a higher level. The rate of unemployment amongst disabled people rises more slowly than the general unemployment rate in adverse conditions and correspondingly recovers more slowly when the employment situation improves.
There are indications that the Government's various reflationary measures are beginning to work. We may perhaps take some comfort from the expectation that the benefits of this general improvement will be shared by unemployed disabled people, even if the improvement here may be more gradual.
Indeed, there is evidence that this is already the case. I am pleased to be able to tell the House that the total number of unemployed registered disabled people dropped from 93,000 on 13th March to about 89,000 on 8th May, which is the latest date for which we have figures available. It is a smallish

drop but it is none the less very welcome, and I hope that it is the forerunner of things to come.
Although the employment prospects of disabled people must depend inevitably, to a large extent, upon the general employment situation, my Department has recently taken a number of steps to improve the special services which are made available to disabled people.
The hon. Gentleman alleges that the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act is of no help to disabled people. This criticism is totally unfounded. Apart from providing the statutory basis for the quota system, to which I shall return, the Act provides the necessary powers under which my Department provides a whole range of special services for disabled people—the resettlement service, industrial rehabilitation, training, and sheltered employment. The hon. Gentleman has concentrated on the operation of the quota to the exclusion, almost, of everything else. Although I am sure that the hon. Gentleman did not intend this, it distorts the situation and ignores the many steps taken by the Government to improve the wide range of services and, indeed, the steps which were taken by the previous Administration, because the same situation appertained during the lifetime of the last Government.
We have reorganised the special placing service so that almost all the Department's disablement resettlement officers are now full-time specialist officers. Notwithstanding the very real difficulties, they succeed in finding about 80,000 jobs a year for disabled people, including 60,000 who are registered disabled under the Act.
Increased provision has been made for the industrial rehabilitation of people who, after absence from work on account of sickness or injury, need preparation for a return to work and assessment for the type of work most likely to provide them with permanent resettlement.
My Department has taken steps to improve its special placement service for blind people. A special staff of 30 blind persons resettlement officers are responsible for helping those who are blind to secure and retain suitable employment. These officials are assisted by a small team of officers who provide induction and on-the-job training and technical advice.
Despite the fact that the numbers of blind people in sheltered work are constantly falling, which is a measure of the steadily increasing extent to which they are placed in open industry, the total number of severely disabled people, whether blind or sighted, in sheltered employment, stands today at a record total of over 13,000. This figure should not be ignored.
Furthermore, our policy continues to to be one of planned expansion, whether through the agency of Remploy Limited nationally or in partnership with local authorities or voluntary bodies under our scheme of grants. Remploy Limited has been asked to build up from its present total of 7,700, itself a record figure, to 8,500 if possible by 1975.
We are also currently in discussion with 30 local authorities about the provision of new purpose-built factories over the next five years or so. Each such factory will provide at least 30 new places. I know that this is of particular interest to my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Money) who is diligent enough to be here tonight to listen to the debate.
About 12,500 severely disabled people are currently unemployed. But the first aim is always to place them in ordinary industry if possible. Of those who cannot be so placed, only about one-third will, in the Department's long experience in these matters, prove suitable and available for sheltered employment. Present planning should thus go far to meet estimated need.
It has been suggested during the course of the debate that the quota scheme should be more strictly enforced and that employers who fail to fulfil their statutory obligations should be prosecuted. As I pointed out during Question Time on 6thJune this is a difficult matter and I do not believe that these proposals would improve the employment prospects of disabled people generally. We wish to improve the opportunities for employment for the disabled, not merely to take action for action's sake.
In the first place, there are insufficient unemployed registered disabled people for all employers to satisfy their quota obligation. If all such people were absorbed by firms with a quota obliga-

tion, the average level of compliance would still be only about 2·75 per cent.
Secondly registration as a disabled person is voluntary and the evidence suggests that there are just as many unregistered but registrable disabled persons in employment. Thus many firms who may not be meeting their quota obligations are clearly fulfilling the spirit of the quota scheme. Moreover, strict enforcement might well improve compliance without making more jobs available for disabled people.
Thirdly, it is difficult to administer the quota scheme too rigidly when satisfactory resettlement is conditional upon the most careful assessment of the disabled person's potential and upon identification of the right job, and when many unemployed registered disabled people in specific employment areas do not, unfortunately, match the jobs on offer in those areas and are unwilling or unable to move. This difficulty has been accentuated because the characteristics of unemployed registered disabled people have changed significantly over the years and this has meant that many of those whom my Department is trying to help present formidable resettlement problems.
They suffer from a number of disadvantages in addition to that imposed by their disability. Recent surveys have shown, for example, that 53 per cent. are over 50 years of age; that 40 per cent. have more than one disability; and that 75 per cent. are unskilled and may be unable to benefit from training at recognised levels. It is also the case—and this is obviously important from the employment point of view—that age-related impairments and mental and nervous conditions are of growing significance.
My Department takes every possible opportunity of reminding employers of their statutory obligations and of making them look rather more positively for new openings for the disabled. To this end it has recently tightened up its procedures for inspecting employers' records. This clearly illustrates the absurdity of the suggestion which has been made that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I are aiding and abetting firms which do not satisfy their quota obligations. Nevertheless, for the reasons I have given I remain absolutely convinced


that widespread prosecutions would serve no useful purpose in trying to bring about the situation that we would all welcome.
The hon. Gentleman has again repeated his request, as he is fully entitled to do, that the recent internal review of my Department's policies and services for the disabled should be published. But, as I have already made clear, it was purely a preparatory study carried out in depth by officials, aimed at analysing the various problems and providing my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State with advice on future policy developments. Therefore, it would be inappropriate to publish the review. It is the common practice in Government, irrespective of which party is in power, that such reviews are not usually published. But as soon as we have had the opportunity to consider the review in detail—and we are considering it urgently—we shall be consulting the National Advisory Council on the Employment of the Disabled and the other bodies most concerned as to whether changes are necessary.
The review has naturally included a thorough examination of the quota system and possible alternatives, including the suggestion that disabled workers in open industry should be subsidised, a point the hon. Gentleman brought out. But the idea was rejected by both the Tomlinson

and the Piercy Committees as being undesirable in principle and unworkable in practice. In general, I believe there is no reason to challenge that view, but I can assure the House that the whole question of the quota will be discussed with the National Council, and more generally, at the earliest possible moment.
I end by assuring the Hon. Gentleman once again that there is no lack of will on our part in wishing to bring about a far better understanding of the problem and in getting the maximum amount of coverage on the question of jobs for the disabled. It is really a question of the most effective means.
Successive Governments have tried to work the Act. It has certain deficiencies, which it may well be possible to repair. But again I emphasise that it is not merely a question of checking up on those who are or are not fulfilling their quota. Active steps are being taken the whole time to get people who are disabled into employment. There are many thousands, I am glad to say, who find and keep good work and overcome their disabilities as a result.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at eight minutes to Two o'clock.